Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Listed Buildings (Damage)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy regarding the replacement of listed buildings partially destroyed by fire; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): This is primarily a matter between the owners and the planning authority, taking each case according to the individual circumstances.

Mr. Galbraith: Is the Secretary of State aware of the great concern in Glasgow that the partially destroyed section of Grosvenor Terrace should be replaced so that the new facade is the same as the existing one? Will he use such powers as he possesses to ensure that a natural disaster, in this case fire, does not give grounds for changing the appearance of the building, which would not otherwise be allowed?

Mr. Millan: I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman that the replacement should be in keeping with the rest of the surroundings. The hotel was a category A listed building, and it is important that any replacement should be of a suitable kind. I very much hope that that point will be borne in mind by the owners and the planning authority, and, indeed, I am sure it will.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this relates not only to the cost of getting the building reinstated to suit the surroundings but to the fact that this building is unique

not just in Glasgow or Scotland but in Western Europe? Therefore, it is a serious problem, because this type of architecture does not exist anywhere else.

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Lady is asking whether the replacement should be a replica. From an architectural point a replica. From an architectural point of view it is not for me to pronounce on the matter, but I believe that any replacement should be in accordance with the rest of the surroundings. Whether, architecturally, that turns out to be a replica of something else is not at the moment a matter for me.

Thermal Insulation

Sir John Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the light of the colder winter experienced in Scotland, he is satisfied that enough progress is being made in thermal insulation of dwelling-houses in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): All new houses in Scotland must comply with the minimum standards for thermal insulation laid down in the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations. Public sector houses which are being comprehensively modernised are also expected to comply with these standards. We expect a further 40,000 houses, built before the regulations came into force, to be brought up to these standards each year under the energy conservation measures recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does the Minister agree that the present snowy conditions in Scotland give an opportunity for occupiers to examine whether their roof spaces are well insulated? I discovered that certain parts of my own house were not well insulated. Will the Minister urge all local authorities and private house owners to survey their properties now in order to discover whether their houses are properly insulated? If they are not it wastes heat, and therefore money and energy.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Has the council bought the hon. Gentleman's house?

Mr. Brown: So far as I know, the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) does not live in a council house. Nevertheless, improvement grants are available


to owner-occupiers, in that local authorities may grant-aid thermal insulation up to regulation standard if it is part of the comprehensive improvement of a house. As an exception to that, the elderly and disabled can attract improvement grants even if only for the improvement of thermal insulation.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister realise that if the Government were to expand their policy of conservation and energy it would receive much support in all parts of the House, because there would be energy savings and also the creation of more jobs, and it would also enable the problem of condensation to be tackled? On the basis that 40,000 houses a year are being brought up to standard, how long would it take for the public housing stock in Scotland to be dealt with?

Mr. Brown: I cannot give a precise answer because some houses are already up to standard. There is no standard that cannot be improved upon in the light of scientific knowledge and experience. The number of houses involved is substantial and we must consider the practical point that, unlike other improvements, there is considerable benefit to the consumer in terms of reduced costs. This is wholly desirable, but there is bound to be an element of dispute on the question whether the community should retain some of the benefits of the public money that is being spent.

Mr. Robert Hughes: There is great appreciation of the work done by local authorities in providing thermal insulation, but does my hon. Friend accept that the situation is different in some private tenancies and that it is difficult to get private landlords to provide this insulation? Will he encourage local authorities to give special assistance to voluntary groups—such as the one operating very successfully in my constituency—that provide thermal insulation, particularly for the elderly and the disabled?

Mr. Brown: Special consideration is given to the elderly and the disabled. If a house is in a scheme of improvement, whether it is owned by a private landlord or a housing association, it is Government policy to give the maximum encouragement to the inclusion of up-to-date provision for thermal insulation when a house is being improved or modernised.

Scottish Arts Council

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to have discussions with the Scottish Arts Council.

Mr. Millan: I have no plans at present for a meeting with the Council, but my Department keeps in close contact with the Council.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Bearing in mind that a previous Government were committed to spend £4½ million to help provide half the cost of a multipurpose theatre in Edinburgh, will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving an increased grant to the Scottish Arts Council and be prepared to meet the Council on this subject?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the problem with the Lyceum and, perhaps, the Little Lyceum theatre. I shall be writing to the Council today telling it that I shall be happy to have a meeting to discuss the problem. There is a distinction between the Opera House project and the Lyceum project. The first was a project of national significance, but, however much I wish to see the Lyceum preserved as a theatre in Edinburgh, I am not sure that I could say that it is of the same national significance.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay a visit to the current exhibition organised by the Scottish Arts Council in Edinburgh, where he will find more than a dozen almost entirely blank canvasses painted by an artist who believes in minimal art and practises what she preaches?

Mr. Henderson: They are Tory election manifestos.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the exhibition has cost public funds more than £1,500, and will he make inquiries to ascertain whether the Council has been taken for a ride or has merely taken leave of its senses?

Mr. Millan: I understood that these pictures were representations of the Tory policy on devolution. If I thought that a visit to the exhibition would provide some enlightenment on that subject, I might go. Otherwise, I do not think that I shall.

Mr. Crawford: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time the hierarchy of the Scottish Arts Council was elected democratically by artists and their colleagues rather than appointed, as at present, on a "jobs for the boys" basis?

Mr. Millan: I repudiate the suggestion that the Council is appointed on a "jobs for the boys" basis.

Schools (Staffing Standards)

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the staffing standards in Scottish schools.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): The recent White Paper on public expenditure includes provision for the employment of teachers in excess of the standards for which we have allowed over the last few years. It is for each education authority to determine how these additional teachers should be deployed, and my right hon. Friend will keep the situation under review.

Mr. Fletcher: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that present staffing standards were assessed when teachers were in short supply? Now that there are a great many unemployed teachers in Scotland, does he not accept that it is not good enough just to refer to the White Paper, because he is in a position to take immediate action to abolish composite classes and appoint additional teaching staff in socially deprived areas?

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Gentleman has made the mistake of not reading his own policy document. Perhaps I should send him a copy, because in what is described as a radical document for the next 10 years the proposed pupil-teacher ratios are not as good as those that exist at present.

Mr. Buchanan: Will my hon. Friend please review the staffing standards? I realise that they have improved, but the Scottish Education Department still looks on the Red Book as Holy Writ. One thing excised from the Red Book was the probationer allowance, which would enable the employment of 1,000 teachers almost immediately. Will my hon. Friend reconsider his reply and have the review that is so necessary?

Mr. McElhone: I have not found much Holy Writ in the SED so far, but I take my hon. Friend's point seriously. He should remember that in the last few months my right hon. Friend has allowed for 500 extra teachers in areas of deprivation, another 100 to ensure that specialist teachers in specialist schools get higher standards and, through the urban programme, another 84 teachers in Strathclyde. Under next year's rate support grant, there is additional finance to provide standards above those laid down in the Red Book and Circular 819, as the White Paper on public expenditure points out.

Mrs. Bain: With reference to the extra employment of teachers, can the hon. Gentleman elaborate on his recent statement that 2,900 extra teachers will be employed by 1981–82? Can he assure us that this is not merely consolidation but that it will improve staff-pupil ratios and reduce class sizes?

Mr. McElhone: Class sizes are already falling by virtue of the decrease in the birth rate. In my constituency there are some primary schools with a roll only half the size of the number of available places. I suggest that the hon. Lady should read the White Paper which deals with staffing standards. We have been much criticised in relation to Circular 819 and the Red Book, but we have said that we shall improve standards as resources allow. That is made clear in the rate support grant for next year and the provisions of the White Paper.

Mr. Sillars: Does the hon. Gentleman's reply means that, where composite classes were introduced because of public expenditure cuts, we can expect, from the next financial year, to go back to normal school arrangements for our children?

Mr. McElhone: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. Composite classes were not introduced for that reason. It should be recognised that composite classes can have good effects. I have heard the intelligent hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) say that he was educated in a composite class.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman consider using some of the available teachers to extend the provision for the mentally handicapped and thus bridge the gap for the age group who


have ceased school and cannot get into adult training centres because there are insufficient places, and will he urge local authorities accordingly?

Mr. McElhone: We have already done that. If the right hon. Lady looks at the recent statistical bulletin from the SED, she will see that the size of classes has been reduced substantially and that there has been a substantial increase in the number of instructors. She is shaking her head. I shall send her a copy of the bulletin so that she can see the information for herself.

Aberdeen College of Education

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his discussion with Aberdeen College of Education and other interested parties on the future of the college.

Mr. McElhone: At a meeting on 13th February between representatives of my Department, Aberdeen College of Education, Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology and Grampian Regional Council, arrangements were made for further discussions among all the parties concerned to ensure that surplus accommodation in the college is put to the best possible use.

Mr. Hughes: In future discussions, will my hon. Friend take into account the concern expressed recently by Mr. Scotland, the college principal, at the fact that there could be a shortage of teachers in North-East Scotland in the near future and on the question whether it is possible for existing lecturers to find places in other disciplines which may come to the college? Will he guarantee that the 29 lecturers at present under threat of redundancy will not be compulsorily made redundant and that this matter will be dealt with by voluntary measures?

Mr. McElhone: My hon. Friend takes a keen interest in this subject. He will understand that I cannot give him the sort of guarantee for which he asks, but I can assure him that my officials met college officials on Monday and had serious discussions on this matter. As my right hon. Friend indicated in his statement on the colleges, it is his intention to ensure that there is natural wastage

and voluntary redundancy to meet the standards that he would like to see in order that we can keep the colleges open as the House wishes.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in relation to the area served by Aberdeen College of Education there are a greater number of qualified applicants for entry into teacher training in Scotland than the quota that the college is allowed to take? Many suitable applicants are having to go elsewhere in Scotland.
Will he give an assurance, in relation to the consideration of future quotas, that the situation of fully qualified applicants is taken into account in establishing the quota for Aberdeen?

Mr. McElhone: On one aspect of that matter I can say that a report came from the prinicipal of the college, I think to every Scottish hon. Member, pointing out what the hon. Member is saying. However, he compliments the Secretary of State in terms of the increase in the number of lecturers for in-service training. One has to accept, in an area of declining pupil rolls, that one cannot keep on providing teachers who will immediately face unemployment. I assure the hon. Member that we have taken serious account of the document supplied by the principal. As my officials are in discussion regarding the possible extension of the rolls in the Grampian area, all that I can promise is that the matter will be given serious consideration.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister seriously telling us that qualified applicants from the North-East who would be able to go to Aberdeen College are being rerouted and directed to colleges elsewhere in Scotland, and that when they have finished their education they will be going back to the North-East to fill the shortage caused by the wastage in teachers up there? Is there any sense in the Government's policy?

Mr. McElhone: There is no sense in the remarks made by the hon. Member. He and most hon. Members prevailed upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to keep open all the colleges of education. He was very active in that, and he must accept that because of that decision, which was welcomed by the House, with falling pupil rolls we cannot


possibly guarantee all the places for young people who wish to become teachers. There is no question of rerouting anyone. The position in Aberdeen is repeated in all the colleges of education in Scotland.

Scottish Assembly

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, which organisations and how many individuals have made representations to him in favour of a first-past-the-post electoral system for the Scottish Assembly.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): None, Sir.

Mr. Knox: Does the Minister agree that a first-past-the-post electoral system would be very unfair for the Assembly in view of the present political climate in Scotland? Will he use his influence with his colleagues in the Government to try to get them to amend the Scotland Bill so that there is a system of proportional representation for the election?

Mr. Ewing: This matter was debated by the House during the passage of the Scotland Bill. The Government gave a free vote to Labour Members, and the House decided by an overwhelming majority that PR was not acceptable and that a first-past-the-post system should prevail.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that that is a very inadequate answer? Is he also aware that his answer to the hon. Gentleman indicates that the Government's failure to consider electoral reform as part of a devolutionary settlement was a profoundly reactionary thing to do? Does he agree that the result is quite grossly distorted and unrepresentative, and that many feel that the responsibility will be wholly that of the Government?

Mr. Ewing: I do not accept that the answer is inadequate. Any Minister recounting word for word what happens in Parliament cannot be accused of giving an inadequate answer. There is not much that I can say except that the House decided by an overwhelming majority not to accept proportional representation.
On the question whether we should have proportional representation, the Government received representations from six organisations and 14 individuals—

hardly an overwhelming approach for proportional representation. But the one thing that I accept—I say this with respect to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston)—is that it is a subject that will continue to be on the agenda. I do not think that there is any doubt about that.

Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister agree that it is a deplorable contempt of the House to suggest that an answer based upon a decision of the House is an inadequate answer? It is rather surprising, coming from the Liberal Party.

Mr. Ewing: I have already dealt with that point.

Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for protection orders have been made under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976; and how many have so far been granted.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: My right hon. Friend has received one application, for the Rivers Tweed and Eye. This is under consideration. No orders have yet been made.

Mr. Canavan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern amongst many ordinary anglers in central Scotland about the River Tweed applications? Will he reject any application whose terms are so exclusive and expensive that fishing would be confined to rich syndicates and Tory landlords, such as Lord Home, the Marquess of Lothian, the Duke of Buccleuch and even the Duke of Sutherland, who seems as intent on clearing the Borders as his ancestors were on clearing the Highlands?

Mr. Brown: From past experience, I am well aware of the use of extravagant language by my hon. Friend. However, I assure him that I do not meet the Lords whom he has mentioned every day of the week, and I have to stick to the facts, which are that we are going through the procedure at the moment. Fifteen objections have been made. The consultative committee met yesterday and is meeting again. There is ample opportunity through the democratic machinery within the Act—I am sure that my hon. Friend will give me credit for this—to examine carefully all these proposals. We have a


long way to go before he can jump to any conclusions.

Mr. David Steel: Since most of the people named by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) are constituents of mine, though not necessarily supporters, may I ask the Minister whether he will look at this matter very carefully, because the point made by the hon. Member is perfectly valid and my constituents would be outraged if there were any order which had the effect of giving protection to water that was not open to the public?
Will the Minister accept that I do not understand how, at this early stage, a protection order could possibly be applied to the whole of the River Tweed and its tributaries? It would be far better to deal with the matter tributary by tributary.

Mr. Brown: That will be considered by the consultative committee, which will advise the Secretary of State, who, in turn, can hold a public local inquiry if necessary. I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. We are talking about proposals that cover 600 miles of rivers, tributaries, and tributaries of tributaries, so it is a massive scheme. I am seized of the representations that have been made that there should be greater access.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister look, for example, at the protection order that was read out at a public meeting of anglers of the British Leyland Club in Blackburn, whereby one riparian owner gave a day's fishing to his hairdresser in Berwick in return for a shave?

Mr. Brown: I must confess at this stage of the proceedings, happily, that I am not involved in knowing such detail. I remind my hon. Friend that that is a devolved matter. If he has any constructive ideas, I am sure that he will see that they are put in the Labour Party's manifesto for the Assembly.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Minister reassure his hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) that once we live in the Elysium of a Scottish national independent State we will all have an equal amount of land, none of the people he mentioned will be allowed more than 100 acres and, since it is to be such a rich, oil-fired, tartan

Ruritanian tax haven, he can spend all day fishing?

Mr. Brown: I have given up trying to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) on anything. The machinery is adequate. It is the first application under the Act and it will most certainly receive adequate scrutiny, bearing in mind the representations that have been made to me by my hon. Friend.

Area Health Boards

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the resolution calling for the election of area health boards, passed by a recent Labour Party conference; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Harry Ewing: My right hon. Friend and I have considered the terms of the resolution but at the moment take the view that direct election of members of health boards is not consistent with my right hon. Friend's responsibility to Parliament for the National Health Service. At present, about one-quarter of the members of the boards are elected local authority councillors. I think that it would be desirable to await the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service before considering any proposals for change.

Mr. Dempsey: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, on the basis of his own figures, three out of four members of area health boards are unelected and unaccountable to the taxpayer whose millions of pounds they are spending? Will he bear in mind also that the TUC, the STUC and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have all supported the principle of democratically elected health authorities? What weight will be given to this formidable body of opinion when my hon. Friend considers the report which he is awaiting?

Mr. Ewing: In the case of COSLA, it should be put on record that its reply to the Monklands District Council was to the effect that it had given evidence to the Royal Commission saying that it thought that there was need for a radical review. Whether that means that members should be elected or not elected is at this stage a matter for conjecture. On the question of responsibility, it is my


right hon. Friend who is responsible to the House for expenditure on the National Health Service in Scotland, and, indirectly, the members of area health boards are responsible to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Monro: Will the hon. Gentleman take it that the Labour Party is not alone in its concern at the appointments made by the Secretary of State to area health boards? Is he aware that the Act envisaged men and women of skill, initiative and experience being appointed to the boards—not for their political affiliation, which seems to be the only matter which the Secretary of State bears in mind?

Mr. Ewing: I have not been disappointed today, because I expected the hon. Member to raise that point and I have come well prepared. Of the 15 area health board chairmen which he, as Minister, appointed in 1973, I reappointed 10. Two of them were not reappointed because they did not wish to be reappointed. Another was not reappointed because he was to become chairman of another board for which my right hon. Friend had responsibility. Only two were not reappointed and were replaced, and since then one of those not reappointed has been appointed to the Mental Welfare Commission. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to withdraw his disgraceful allegation—I do not expect that he will—but it is totally without foundation.

Mr. Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman broaden his already broad education by considering a recent resolution of the Scottish National Party conference which called for the abolition of area health boards in those parts of Scotland where there are both area health boards and district health boards? Would that not release a considerable amount of money, which could be spent on health care instead of care for the administration?

Mr. Ewing: I sometimes wonder what the Scottish National Party spends its time on. In the past year it has called for the abolition of the regions, it has called for the abolition of Westminster, it has called for the abolition of area health boards, and it is calling for the abolition of the United Kingdom. I

understand that tomorrow is the anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath. I suggest that instead of the St. Andrew's Cross the skull and crossbones should be flown, because the SNP is the biggest bunch of pirates that I have seen in my life.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does my hon. Friend accept that the democratisation of administration of the National Health Service should go a lot further? Is it not deplorable that, with a minimal contribution coming from some members of the medical profession and from nurses, this whole field is almost entirely in the hands of the big white chiefs of the hyperdermic and the scalpel? Does this not play its part in some of the problems that we have in the National Health Service today?

Mr. Ewing: I have dealt with National Health Service matters for over two years now. With great respect to my hon. Friend, I sometimes wish that people would stop talking the NHS down. There are many nations throughout the world which would give their right arm to have the sort of health service that we have. There are some things wrong with the National Health Service, but they are not all that much wrong that they cannot be put right. We are always working towards the Utopian situation that we desire.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is there any limit to the number of elections that the Labour Party would foist on a reluctant Scotland? May we have an assurance that the Labour Party conference resolution referred to in the Question, and the resolution which called for abortion on demand, will be treated with the contempt which Labour Party conference resolutions deserve?

Mr. Ewing: I never take seriously the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who is guilty of scavenging for political votes where he can. If the implication of his supplementary question is that he is against democracy, I hope that he will say so.

Lossiemouth

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay a visit to Lossiemouth.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mrs. Ewing: If the Secretary of State had time to come to Lossiemouth, would he care to follow up the letter that he wrote to me last week on the vexed question of the replacement of Lossiemouth senior school? Is the Under-Secretatry of State aware of the strength of demand of meetings of hundreds of parents and of a united headmaster and staff who are asking for the justice that was promised them before and after regionalisation, instead of which they are being fobbed off with half a school—a split school with its parts three-quarters of a mile from one another—without modern facilities, and all this against the background that we are to have a great increase in the local population through the Ministry of Defence adding to its base? Moreover, due to the fact—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady ought to ask a question. That was almost as long as a Scottish sermon.

Mr. MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend, who is well aware of the situation, will have heard the points made by the hon. Lady. If she really wants a serious answer on that matter she would do better to table a Question.

Mr. Dalyell: On the question of Lossiemouth, does my hon. Friend recall the letter headed "RAF and SNP", in which the SNP asks
What is to happen to the Royal Air Force in Scotland when Scotland becomes independent"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote in asking a supplementary question.

Mr. Dalyell: I was wondering how the Scottish Royal Air Force was getting on in Lossiemouth.

Mr. MacKenzie: Probably as well as the Scottish Royal Navy and Army, or whatever it may be. Frankly, I am not in a position to advance my hon. Friend's education on that. Perhaps one day we shall see some common sense coming from the SNP about these matters.

Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. Lady mind keeping her point of order until after Questions?

Mrs. Ewing: I am always guided by you, Mr. Speaker, but it is in relation to the question asked.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to be fair to all, and my experience is that hon. Members on either side can be provoked by a question asked from the other side. I shall be glad if the hon. Lady will follow the practice and raise her point of order at the end of Questions. I shall be here, and I hope that she will be.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a more serious matter, will the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the event of the nationalists having their way and Scotland becoming independent, there would be a massive loss of defence and other jobs, which could have a very significant effect in education? Is any contingency plan being prepared for the educational disruption which would inevitably stem from a substantial outflow of jobs and people from Scotland if such an event were to take place?

Mr. MacKenzie: No plans of any kind are being drawn up on that basis. I am certain that most right hon. and hon. Members believe that we shall have not separatism but a proper Assembly, as the House wishes, which will meet the aspirations of the Scots.

Later—

Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory and debonair way in which my question about the Lossiemouth school was dealt with, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Employment (Vacancies)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the co-ordination of his Department and the Manpower Services Commission for bringing job vacancies to the notice of unemployed persons in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend's responsibility is to consider and approve the strategic plan and programmes of the Manpower Services Commission and its agencies as these affect Scotland. Detailed arrangements for


bringing vacancies to the notice of job seekers are matters for the Employment Service Agency and the Careers Service themselves.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Monday this week the Agency closed its office in the town of Brechin in my constituency, which is an important industrial centre in Tayside, and that this is happening at a time when that ton has suffered severe redundancies? Will the Minister look at this matter again? Surely, there should be opportunity for people to know of vacancies. Could not the office be continued possibly even on a part-time basis?

Mr. MacKenzie: I am bound to say that it is not a matter in which I would normally intervene. As I said in my original answer, it would be a matter for the Employment Service Agency. Bearing in mind the numbers who have used the Brechin office—I think 40 persons in one week—the arrangements that the ESA has made for travelling expenses from Montrose, and all the other arrangements that it has made to publicise job vacancies for the Brechin District Council, I cannot hold out any hope to the hon. Gentleman. However, I shall draw these matters to the attention of the ESA.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of those who come up to Shetland to seek jobs experience difficulty in finding anywhere to live? Will he ask the Agency to warn people who come up for jobs that there is a grave shortage of accommodation?

Mr. MacKenzie: I am sure that these are matters that will be borne in mind by the ESA when appointments are made.

Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the office is kept open at Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth, as it would appear that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing)—requires its services? Any Scottish Member of Parliament who does not know the date of the Declaration of Arbroath should resign.

Mr. MacKenzie: It had not occurred to me that my hon. Friend or anyone else on the Labour Benches would need the services of the Employment Service

Agency. It may be that SNP Members will find it much more appropriate to table such Questions than any Labour Member.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the justifiable grievance of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that the Scottish Office and the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have created a situation in Scotland in which we now have more than 12 unemployed persons chasing every vacant job? Surely they have an obligation to do all in their power to ensure that the few available job vacancies are filled.

Mr. MacKenzie: At present there are 15,000 vacancies in Scotland. I have indicated in the course of my original answer and in supplementary answers that, allowing for the number of people involved and the number using the services of the ESA, I think that the Agency had a reasonable case for transferring the work to the Montrose office.

Economic Prospects

Mr. Fairgrieve: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the prospects for the Scottish economy in the forthcoming year.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the economic outlook.

Mr. Millan: Progress in both the United Kingdom and Scottish economies over the rest of this year will be greatly influenced by the extent to which growth in world trade can be maintained, and by success in the continuing attack against domestic inflation.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in Scotland there are far more businesses becoming bankrupt, fewer new businesses forming and fewer people being taken on by small businesses, and that the small business sector offers the only way in which we can cut into our unemployment problem? Will he consider introducing policies that will help the small business sector?

Mr. Millan: I think that we have already done that. On the general question of the state of the economy, I do not


think that the CBI in Scotland, for example, takes the same gloomy view as the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Taylor: As the policies of the Secretary of State have resulted in unemployment in Scotland more than doubling in three and a half years, and as the outlook for employment and investment is accepted as bleak, will he at least say that he will have a complete review of the Government's economic policies, which have been a disaster for the Scottish people?

Mr. Millan: I do not accept that. As for the level of unemployment, the Government have already introduced a number of employment measures that at present are catering for about 54,000 people in Scotland. We have already announced that we shall continue those measures, and in some cases strengthen them, after 1st April.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that in advance of that date he will associate himself closely with the work being undertaken by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in encouraging the development of small businesses, which is a considerable potential growth area for Scotland?

Mr. Millan: Yes, I agree with that. I shall do that. If the right hon. Gentleman considers the activities in this area of the Scottish Development Agency, which took over SICRAS, which was previously an independent organisation, he will find that since it was established it has continued and considerably increased and expanded the work done by SICRAS.

Mr. Sillars: Does my right hon. Friend recall that three months after taking office he gave an interview to the Daily Record, published on 14th July 1976, in which he said that the prospects for the Scottish economy never looked so good and that unemployment was set to come down? If he has been pursuing the correct economic policies since taking office, why has unemployment in Scotland reached 203,000?

Mr. Millan: I think that it has been a disappointment to all hon. Members that over the past couple of years we have seen in this country, and in the Western world as a whole, very high rates of unemployment, which are mostly a direct reflection

of the considerable world recession through which, unfortunately, we are still passing.

Mr. Crawford: Leaving aside the Conservatives' imposition of the levy on the self-employed and their calls for further expenditure cuts, which will not help to provide jobs, what percentage growth rate does the right hon. Gentleman's Department expect in the Scottish economy in 1978?

Mr. Millan: On recent patterns, I expect that the growth in the Scottish economy will be about the same as it has been in the United Kingdom as a whole. That is how the pattern is running at present.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend take into account that, although there are difficulties in the Scottish economy, by and large things are not as bleak and gloomy as Members on the Opposition Benches would wish? Will he publish in the Official Report the recent figures that indicate that, apart from London and the South-East, the wages of manual workers in Scotland are higher than those in any other region of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Millan: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely correct. That is only one indicator of how the relative Scottish position has improved in recent years.

Housing (Homeless Persons)

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his code of guidance under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 will, when published, clearly distinguish between the responsibilities of the different authorities as has already been done for England and Wales.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: We are on the point of sending out a circular of guidance to housing and social work authorities. Among other things, it will indicate ways in which the Secretary of State would expect social work authorities to supplement the efforts of housing authorities in discharging their statutory responsibility.

Mr. Ross: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the concern that is felt by many people concerned with homelessness in Scotland who feel


that the code of guidance that his Department is to publish will be inadequate? Why is it not possible for his Department to take on board the already published code of guidance for England and Wales and to adopt its comprehensive form?

Mr. Brown: I, too, am disappointed at the inability of COSLA to produce a code of guidance. I do not have time to go into the reasons, but if COSLA had agreed with me we should not be in this difficulty. We shall make the code available, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it would be inappropriate if the references were to the law of England and Wales. Although the circular has much useful information in it, it is not a substitute for the code of guidance for Scotland that ultimately will be produced.

Mr. Canavan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the code of guidance is essential to stop regional councils and district councils passing the buck from one to another? Will he deal with this matter urgently? Does he appreciate that the Act is due to come into effect in a few weeks?

Mr. Brown: A pretty detailed circular is being issued. It is not a substitute for a code, but it satisfies the requirement to give guidance. I am certain that there will be effective co-operation between authorities that will prevent authorities passing the buck either from one housing authority to another or between housing authorities and social work authorities. I should regret such buck passing, and it will be part of my job to ensure that there is the maximum concern shown for the homeless.

Mr. Younger: Does the Minister agree that this deplorable situation arose because the Scottish Office has been trying to pass the buck to local authorities? Surely the Scottish Office should take up its responsibilities under the Act and give proper guidance made out by the Scottish Office for local authorities to follow.

Mr. Brown: I know that the Conservative Party is in a bad way, but the hon. Gentleman should not scrape the barrel. For weeks I have been arguing with the hon. Gentleman that I should consult COSLA in almost everything. Do not blame me for COSLA's inability to come up with a working code of guidance,

or its inability to produce some working document. I thought that it was right and proper to consult COSLA and to let those doing the job produce the code of guidance. I regret that the talks have broken down. We shall give the advice now, and I hope that it will be adequate.

Mr. Welsh: May I press on the Minister the urgency and necessity of producing a proper and comprehensive code of conduct before the Act is implemented rather than issuing a circular? I ask the Minister to institute immediately consultations with all appropriate bodies in order so to do.

Mr. Brown: There have been consultations with the appropriate bodies. I repeat that we are sending out a circular that gives guidance. I can give the further assurance that there will be talks with COSLA and the voluntary bodies, and perhaps together we can ultimately draw up a more extensive and comprehensive code of guidance in accordance with the English procedure. However, there will be adequate guidance to ensure that the Act comes into operation on 1st April.

Western Isles (Road Equivalent Tariff)

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now give a date for the introduction of a road equivalent tariff in the Western Isles.

Mr. Millan: No, Sir.

Mr. Stewart: Is not the right hon. Gentleman capable of some imagination on this issue? Instead of the mindless rubber-stamping of the jacking-up of fares year by year, and several times a year on some occasions, by the Scottish Transport Group, will he give some consideration, as adoption is inevitable at the end of the day, to the road equivalent tariff recommended by the Highlands and Islands Development Board and fight for assistance for the economic survival of the Scottish Islands in the way that the Government subsidise London Transport?

Mr. Millan: We already give a substantial subsidy to MacBrayne's, which in the coming year will amount to £3·6 million. I have repeatedly made clear that that does not mean that fares in the Western Isles will never go up. The


average increases, which have been announced, will be about 10 per cent. They have been graded in a way which will put rather less of the burden on the inhabitants of the Western Isles. I believe that that is the fair way to proceed. I shall be giving an increased subsidy next year.

Schools (Industrial Relations Tuition)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to instruct pupils in secondary schools on employee-employer relations and the realities of working life.

Mr. McElhone: A major part of the curriculum development project on "Education for the Industrial Society", which I initiated in April last year, is intended to help secondary school pupils to gain a better understanding of the importance to our economy of good industrial relations.

Mr. Gourlay: Will the Minister give an assurance that the curriculum has been designed to show how potential conflict between management and labour can be prevented and to give pupils an insight into the many reasons for distrust and lack of communication on both sides of industry?

Mr. McElhone: One of the most pleasing aspects of this initiative was the tremendous encouragement from the CBI and the STUC as well as from shop stewards and management personnel. The project is designed to do what my hon. Friend wishes. I recognise that his local authority has been much in the forefront in getting young people to understand what the industrial society is all about.

Mr. Welsh: Given the reality of over 200,000 unemployed in Scotland and the past history of United Kingdom policies towards unemployment in Scotland, will the Minister consider arranging a course to give children instruction on the realities of a non-working life until Scotland can use her own resources to create a full-employment economy?

Mr. McElhone: We all regret the fact that so many people are unemployed, but the latest opinion poll recognises that people will not in future support the Scottish National Party.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Minister take note of the fact that if every small business in Scotland employing fewer than 10 people were to take on one more person, another 80,000 people would be employed? Will he consider enlarging the present scheme, which I think concludes at the end of March, not only to special development areas but to the whole of Scotland?

Mr. McElhone: This is not a matter that is within my ministerial responsibility but my right hon. Friend and colleagues are already working on it.

WARRANT SALES

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord Advocate whether he will arrange to meet the Scottish Law Commission to discuss the law on warrant sales.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I have no immediate plans to meet the Scottish Law Commission to discuss the law on warrant sales.

Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the Scottish Law Commission that it is about time we had a report from its committee, which was set up in 1969 to investigate warrant sales? Could this undue delay have anything to do with recent reports that membership of the committee includes such people as Alexander MacPherson, who was recently appointed to succeed my old friend Sheriff Thomson and whose family runs a firm of sheriffs' officers and, therefore, has a vested interest in continuing this barbaric practice of warrant sales?

The Lord Advocate: The short answer is "No, Sir". The work of the Scottish Law Commission on this matter has been carried on very effectively. I should point out, as I mentioned in answer to earlier parliamentary questions, that an inquiry that is by way of a research project into the sociological and factual background is necessary if we are to reform the law on diligence effectively. That inquiry has been under way since November 1977. Considerable material has been obtained and is being processed. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend is wrong in suggesting that progress is not being made in this area. I remind


my hon. Friend that this is not an easy area, because the merits are not all on one side. He should remember that, for example, wage earners in a firm which goes bankrupt may have to resort to diligence to get their wages paid.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is it not an area in which, however we look at it, we must accept that it is barbaric not to leave a family with a reserve of fundamental items, such as bedding? Could there not be an approach which reserved to a family some amount of money and certain fundamental items?

The Lord Advocate: I remind the House that to suggest that legislation is barbaric is to bring the problem back to the House, because the procedure is based on legislation passed by the House. The procedure is laid down by statute. I disagree with what the hon. Lady suggested. Indeed, she perhaps needs to be reminded tht my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was responsible for introducing a Private Member's Bill which covered the precise point that she made.

LAW OFFICERS (SALARIES)

Mr. Fairbairn: asked the Lord Advocate what is the salary of the Scottish Law Officers and of each of the advocates-depute; and whether the latter are part-time or full-time.

The Lord Advocate: My ministerial salary is £11,000 per annum. The Solicitor-General's ministerial salary is £8,270 per annum. Advocates-depute, who are part-time, receiver £9,000 per annum.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Lord Advocate take steps to implement the recommendations in the Boyle Report, which deal with this matter? It is unjustifiable that the senior advocate-depute, who is the Solicitor-General and a full-time Minister, should earn a lower salary than his part-time subordinates. This has nothing to do with guideline breaching or any of the fantasies of the pay policy. Will he put right this insult to the Scottish legal system?

The Lord Advocate: I agree that the present situation is anomalous. I remind the House that, like other Ministers, the

Solicitor-General's salary is based upon the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975. Since 1975 the salaries of the Solicitor-General and certain other junior Ministers have been twice increased by Statutory Instrument under the Act. The gap to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred has therefore been narrowed.
On the wider aspect of incomes policy, the Review Body on Top Salaries, in its eighth report in July 1976, recommended that the Solicitor-General should receive a higher salary. But, as the House knows, the Government are at present in no way committed to implementing that or other recommendations in the report, as the Lord President informed the House on 12th July 1976.

Mr. Rifkind: Is the Lord Advocate aware that, unfortunately, crime is the only present growth industry in Scotland? Is he satisfied that the present complement of advocates-depute is sufficient to deal with the problem?

The Lord Advocate: Yes, Sir. The complement has recently been increased by two.

POLICE SERGEANT WILLIAM JAMIESON

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Lord Advocate when he expects to receive the report from the Crown Office on the case of Police Sergeant William Jamieson of Bo'ness.

The Lord Advocate: I received the Crown Agent's report on 4th February 1978. The Crown Agent took statements from 40 persons in connection with his inquiry into this case. I have studied the report and the statements. I have found there to be no fresh evidence which would cause me to take a different view of the case.

Mr. Dalyell: Arising from the Jamieson case, will the Lord Advocate reflect whether it is time that legislation was brought forward to do something about the stated case procedure?

The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend is right to put his supplementary question in that context. I think that we need to have an early look at this particular aspect of our procedure. However, my hon. Friend may be aware that the matter


was covered by the last report of the Thomson Committee. In fact, it appears that its recommendations do not go along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Fairbairn: Without in any way criticising the Crown Agent, I suggest that it is an unsatisfactory procedure to give the chief prosecuting agent under the Lord Advocate the job of impartially investigating a prosecution in which he succeeded, to see whether he was right in his prosecution. Surely, if any such inquiry should be set on foot, it should be conducted by some impartial person who has no loyalty to either side.

The Lord Advocate: I dissociate myself from any suggestion that the Crown Agent did not carry out this examination with complete objectivity. I should make it clear to the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn)—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will bear this out—that I made no pretence when I asked the Crown Agent to undertake this inquiry that it was other than a departmental inquiry. Unfortunately, I must use the resources available to me and to my Department.

FAROESE FISHING GROUNDS

Mr. Robert Hughes: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the decision by the Faroese Government to close to British trawlers without notice part of the fishing grounds in which only recently agreement was reached.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): The closure of these fishing grounds is contrary to our understanding of the provisional agreement recently reached between the European Commission and the Faroese authorities. We have therefore taken the matter up as a matter of urgency with the Commission and with the Faroese authorities and expressed our serious concern at this development.

Mr. Hughes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that forthright reply. Will he continue to press the matter as hard as possible and make the authorities aware of the importance of these grounds, especially to the British trawling fleet?

If this means that the agreement can suddenly be set aside will he consider reviewing our part of the agreement with the Faroes? Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that he is discussing this bilaterally with the Faroese authorities?

Mr. Millan: Discussions about the agreement with the Faroes is a matter for the Commission. We are parties to the agreement, but it is a provisional agreement and it is to come up for formal adoption by the Council of Ministers. The Faroese Government are saying that a particular part of the ring around the Faroes which was to be open to our fishermen is to be closed until May for conservation reasons. We do not accept that this is part of the agreement. It is that question which we are investigating with all urgency.

Sir John Gilmour: Can the Secretary of State say whether access is being given to the line fishermen who fish in Faroese waters since I understand that we give reciprocal rights to Faroese line fishermen to fish in our waters?

Mr. Millan: This does not affect line fishermen. I should prefer to see exactly what the position is. This is a rather confused situation. I am not clear whether it has arisen from a misunderstanding or whether it is a deliberate attempt by the Faroese to restrict the agreement. If it is the latter, it is a serious development and would call into question whether we should have reciprocal agreements of this kind.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I support the Secretary of State's objection to the breaking of the agreement. But does he recognise that the Faroese action is in support of the claim of all countries to safeguard their valuable fishing rights? Should not the Secretary of State continue to support the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his efforts to secure a 50-mile limit round the British Isles?

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Member should also recognise that in reciprocal agreements one expects the other party to carry out its side of the agreement.

Mr. James Johnson: I accept that this is a confused situation, but is it not another example of the slow diminution of our distant water fleets, bearing in mind the exclusion of Hull vessels from


Russian and Icelandic waters—although the cod war now seems to be in the dim and distant past? What are the Government doing? Are they honestly standing up and fighting on behalf of our people?

Mr. Millan: Of course we are. We are talking about a reciprocal agreement. It is a question whether what we can offer the Faroese Government is acceptable to them and whether what they can offer us is acceptable to us. It is not a question of an internal regime in the Community. Basically this is a Third country agreement.
We have reached a provisional agreement which our industry considers to be only marginally acceptable. Indeed, some sections of the industry do not consider that it is acceptable. Therefore, any further restrictions on our fishing must call into question the whole of the agreement. We are still waiting for clarification about exactly what is at stake.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that, important though this is for its own sake, it raises important questions about other Third countries, such as Norway? May we have an assurance in relation to any reciprocal arrangements negotiated through the EEC that he will be resolute that if these countries are hard to our fishermen we shall be equally hard back?

Mr. Millan: I can give that assurance. There is some connection between the Faroese and Norwegian agreements. We must look at them as one in terms of the quantities of fish that are available to British fishermen. We are alert to this point.

Mr. McNamara: I am sure that the House will hope that this is only teething trouble in the emergence of a new agreement and that a proper solution will be found. But does the situation not underline the need, now that the talks in Europe have broken down, for us to produce a straightforward, direct conservation policy to protect our national interests so that we know where we stand and so that the fishing industry and the public know where they stand?

Mr. Millan: That is a separate question. We are considering conservation measures at the moment. Of course these

conservation measures cannot be discriminatory so far as the rest of the Community is concerned. I hope that the House will not place too high an expectation simply upon conservation measures, although particular measures, such as the banning of herring fishing in the North Sea and the Norwegian pout box, are important and we shall see that they are maintained.

Mr. Watt: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that there can be no long-term solution to the Norwegian and Faroese situation as long as we are hamstrung by the EEC fishing policy? Can we now expect the Minister to come to the House and announce that he is prepared to take unilateral action to protect the interests of the British fishing industry?

Mr. Millan: We have already taken unilateral action on conservation measures. We have made clear where we stand. We are ready to do that again if we believe that it is necessary to protect our interests.

Mr. Fell: The Secretary of State said that the herring quotas would be maintained. What did he mean by that?

Mr. Millan: I did not say that.

Mr. Fell: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman did say that the herring quotas would be maintained. Those are the words that he used. For how long does he think that they will be maintained?

Mr. Millan: If I did say that, I did not mean it. Perhaps the hon. Member misunderstood or perhaps it was a slip of the tongue. There is a ban on herring fishing in the North Sea. I am saying that we intend to see that the ban on herring fishing in the North Sea is maintained.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the report of the incidents in Box 1 off the Faroes is regarded by men in the middle-water fleet as almost the last straw, following their being hounded out of traditional waters and being presented with a quota of 7,000 tonnes off the Faroes, a third of their catch in this area in recent years, and then within a few days being warned out of one of the areas specified in the provisional agreement?
On the general issue, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a strong feeling in Scotland that, while the agreement makes valuable concessions to the Faroes, the French and the Germans, it goes against the interests of the middle-water fleet, largely based in Aberdeen, which believes that it will result in considerable unemployment and a considerable reduction in catch? Therefore, if those problems continue, will he make it absolutely clear that further incidents will result in the valuable concessions to the Faroese also being withdrawn?

Mr. Millan: I have already said that we are dealing with a reciprocal agreement, and if our fishing opportunities disappear, that means that the agreement is abandoned and the Faroese fishing opportunities will disappear as well. We felt that on balance the agreement we reached last week, after rather difficult negotiations, was worth having, in view of the respective quantities of fish to be caught by the Faroes and member States of the EEC. But I am well aware of what the industry feels about the agreement. It believes that it is very much on the borders of acceptability, and if we were to find that the opportunities were to be further limited and that the quotas we now have could not be caught in the Faroese waters, I repeat that that would call the whole agreement into question.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (SECURITY)

Mr. Greville Janner: I wish to raise a point of order of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker—the continuation of the restrictions on the Line of Route after the end of the firemen's strike.
This matter was raised in the House at the time, and I understood that it was your understanding, Mr. Speaker, as well as the understanding of hon. Members, that the restrictions were for the period of the firemen's strike, that they were regrettable and that they would be ended as soon as possible. But the only one that has been ended is the restriction on numbers. We are still not able to bring our constituents or other parties into the Robing Room, the Lords Chamber or the Crypt.
I am sure that we understand the needs of security, but these must be balanced against the rights of access of hon. Members and their constituents and other citizens to our Palace of Westminster. Matters have reached the stage where last week I was given the key to the Crypt and allowed to take constituents' children there, but yesterday I was told that the Crypt was out of bounds to hon. Members, with or without guests. When matters reach that stage, Mr. Speaker, I ask you, as guardian of our liberties, to intervene.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he would raise this point of order.
Last November I was advised by the Joint Committee on Security that because of the firemen's strike, and for other reasons of security, there should be restrictions to the Line of Route.
The hon. Gentleman was quite right to say that when the strike was over the restriction on the number of visitors in a party that could be taken around was removed. The number returned to 32. But certain other physical restrictions remained, on the advice of the Joint Security Committee. These are the exclusion of the Robing Room, which is not in our part of the building, and the Crypt Chapel, which we share with another place. There remained also a requirement that visitors to the House of Lords should view their Lordships' Chamber from the Bar only.
I am assured that the Joint Security Committee is keeping the situation under review. I know that hon. Members will not expect me in public to go into questions of security. These restrictions are not imposed lightly or to annoy hon. Members. They are made after considerable thought.

REPORT STAGES (SELECTION OF AMENDMENTS)

Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker I rise on a new matter concerning procedure which must be of major importance to hon. Members in all parts of the House. I gave you notice this morning. I raise the point of order now, rather than when Orders of the Day have been called, because it affects all Report stages of Bills and not only that with which we shall be dealing today.
Basically, the matter arises because of the growing number of Bills for which Governments of both parties have required timetable motions. It is interesting to note that 12 timetable motions were needed in the 12 years between 1954 and 1966, whereas since 1966–67 Governments have required 33 timetable motions. I use that date for a reason that I think will become evident as I proceed.
The matter of selection of amendments on Report is well understood by the House. It is covered by Standing Order No. 33 and by pages 452 and 453 of "Erskine May". For reasons of limitation of time, I do not intend to read them to the House, but it is important for the House to bear in mind two further matters in order to understand my full submission.
On page 535 of "Erskine May", the paragraph headed
Consideration of Bill, as amended
states quite clearly:
While amendments which were rejected in committee may be moved again, and attempts may be made by amendments to restore the original text of the bill, the power of selection of amendments, conferred upon the Speaker by S.O. No. 33, is a check upon excessive repetition of debates which have already taken place in committee; and this power is usually exercised more freely".
—which in this instance perhaps means more stringently—
by the Speaker on consideration than in committee by the chairman.
In the first four lines of page 453 we read the following words, which are also of considerable importance:
in recent years it has become the normal practice for the Speaker (or in Committee of the Whole House the Chairman of Ways and Means) to post a notice setting out those amendments and new clauses which he has provisionally".
—underline "provisionally"—
decided to select.
The basis of my submission is that at all times selection is a very difficult but evolving matter. I think that all hon. Members who wish to see order continue sympathise with the Chair in its difficult job in maintaining the very best standards that have been set. But it is necessary and relevant for the House to understand that there are, in the words of Mr. Speaker King,
broad and important principles at work
—that is a direct quotation from his submission to the Select Committee on Procedure

in 1966 and shows that which Mr. Speaker bears in mind in making his selection.
These broad principles set out in the submission made by Mr. Speaker King to the Procedure Committee still operate and any hon. Member who wished to go into the matter would be referred by the Table to that submission. As I understand it, that broad statement of principle still stands as the document on which a Speaker in particular works.
The matter is very important because when there is unlimited time it is up to the House how it spends that time in dealing with amendments, but when there is a guillotine motion, legislation produced by either party when in Government, and opposed by either party when in Opposition, is getting on to the statute book often without consideration either in Committee or on Report. If that is so, it seems to me that a new principle should be considered in order to try to ensure that on Report questions that have not been considered in Committee should be selected by the Chair, and should receive greater emphasis so that the House may consider them rather than having re-runs of previous debates.
In order to be absolutely fair in my presentation, may I refer again to page 87 of the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, which divides the principles at work into two areas—those that govern selection and those that govern rejection. In dealing with selection it is obviously understood that all Government amendments are selected. That is simple and easy to understand. Two other matters are important. Amendments should be selected which involve Government undertakings. I raise no question on that. We then come to:
New compromises or halfway proposals
and
important issues carefully debated in Committee but still containing vital matters worthy of a 'last look'.
When there is unlimited time those matters are, of course, of great importance.
I now turn to the reasons for rejection of selection. The first and major reason given is that of
adequate discussion, particularly of amendments that have been rejected on a Division by the Committee".
These are not selected.
I can well see the need for a second look when we have unlimited time. But if I may use, purely because of convenience, an illustration which could possibly arise today, we see that, after the guillotine has fallen at 7.30 p.m., the provisional selection—and it is only a provisional selection—has first selected Amendment No. 69 in the name of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). This will mean that there will be a complete re-run of a debate which we have already had, a debate which ran from 6.48 p.m. to 10.45 p.m. in Committee of the whole House. The Committee reached a major decision after a large number of hon. Members had spoken. If the amendment was of great importance I would submit—because this is a Government Bill and because the amendment seeks to replace the exact words which the Government originally had in the Bill—that the Government should move the amendment. They have not done so.
It seems that there will be a limiting of the discussion on certain Opposition amendments as a result of this re-run. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the debate on Amendment No. 69 will run from 7.30 p.m. to 11 p.m. In the illustration that I use, that would preclude amendments tabled by the Opposition Front Bench concerning rates and the financing of the Scottish Assembly—matters which are of major importance in the eyes of some hon. Members but which have not been debated at all—from being discussed. We are saddled with the discussion of an amendment which has already been very fully considered.
It seems that, since the principles on which Mr. Speaker should work were adumbrated by Mr. Speaker King, because of the larger number of guillotine and timetable motions which are now coming forward, there is a new responsibility on the Chair to be borne in mind when selecting amendments. In the Report stage when there is a timetable motion it is more important to allow the House to discuss amendments which have not been debated at all in Committee or on Report than to have a re-run on an amendment on which the House has already reached a conclusion.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) was good enough

to give me notice this morning that he would seek to raise this point of order and I have, therefore, had an opportunity to consider the points he has raised.
The House is aware that Report stage is an important stage of a Bill. It is the last opportunity the House has of looking at its various proposals before it leaves this House, if it gets a Third Reading. It is true that Mr. Speaker King gave important evidence on this question to the Select Committee on Procedure in 1967. The power of selection, given by Standing Order No. 33, is wholly discretionary. It is neither usual nor desirable for Mr. Speaker to give reasons for the selection or non-selection of any amendment.
I remind the hon. Member, to whose argument I have listened with great care, that when Mr. Speaker King was referring to rejected amendments from Committee stage and spoke particularly of those rejected on a Division in Committee, he was not dealing with a similar situation to that which we have now. The short answer is that this was not an amendment rejected in Committee. It was part of the original Bill. There is a major difference.
Since I have been in the Chair I have exercised my discretion when we have come to Report stage, even when there has been a Division in Committee. It is something I do with great reluctance and very rarely. I have made my selection and I am afraid that it must stand.

Mr. Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful to you for your ruling. In no way do I wish to question that ruling as it affects the selection of amendments for today's business. However, I wonder whether you would consider the matters I have raised today of enough importance for the future to see whether my submission should not be part of Mr. Speaker's "broad and important principles" when selecting amendments on Report if the guillotine is involved. I do not ask for an answer today but I should like an answer at some time on that point.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. This is really a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure. I will, of course, look at this myself and if necessary get in touch with the hon. Gentleman rather than make a statement in the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 3RD MARCH

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Tam Dalyell.

Mr. John Farr.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 4 (Statutory instruments, &amp;c. (procedure)), the Motion relating to Medicines may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Graham.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Graham.]

SOCIAL SECURITY (KIDNEY PATIENTS)

3.58 p.m.

Sir George Young: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to extend to kidney patients on dialysis units the attendance allowance provided under Social Security Acts.
The object of this Bill is to restore the attendance allowance to a number of kidney patients who have recently had it taken away from them, to ensure that it is not taken away from others who are having their cases reviewed, and to extend it to other kidney patients who would not otherwise qualify because of the tighter rules now operated by the Attendance Allowance Board.
There are at the moment 2,226 people in the United Kingdom who are on dialysis machines because their kidneys have failed. For them dialysis two or three times a week is essential for survival. By dialysing on a machine the impurities in their blood are removed.
This Bill is concerned with those who dialyse at home—a development which is to be encouraged, since it takes pressures off our hospitals and enables patients to lead as normal a life as possible in the community. Home dialysis is a tedious and lengthy operation not without risk. The Attendance Allowance Board estimates that for each dialysis session it takes three hours to prepare and strip down the machine and some five to 12 hours to dialyse. The vast majority of kidney patients have to dialyse between two and three times a week.
Dialysis should not be undertaken by the patient on his own. When dialysis takes place in hospital, an attendant has to be present. There is even more reason for someone to be present when dialysis takes place at home. There can be blood leaks, the patient can become hypertensive, injections have to be administered, or something can go wrong with the machine.
We are, therefore, speaking of a small number of patients who suffer from a distressing disease. The only hope of recovery lies with a transplant but, regrettably, over 50 per cent. of kidney transplants fail, and there are not nearly enough donors to satisfy demand.
I turn now to the attendance allowance, which is the national insurance benefit that has aroused the current controversy. The statutory medical requirements for receiving the allowance are laid down in Section 35 of the Social Security Act 1975. This stipulates that in order to qualify for an attendance allowance at the higher rate, a person must be so severely disabled, physically or mentally, that for six months or more he has required by day frequent attention or continual supervision to avoid substantial danger to himself or others, and, at night, prolonged or repeated attention or, again, continual supervision to avoid substantial danger. To qualify for the lower rate of allowance—which is the one that concerns most kidney patients—a person must satisfy one of the day conditions or one of the night conditions.
The scheme is administered by the Attendance Allowance Board, and it appears that, up until last summer, most kidney patients qualified for the lower rate of attendance allowance.
Last summer, the Attendance Allowance Board reconsidered its rules. It appears that it was prompted to do so by the introduction of faster dialysers, which were capable of reducing the length of each session. It concluded that as from 21st June, there should be a lower limit of not fewer than three sessions at night of any duration, and not fewer than three sessions by day, each of six hours, in the case of those who dialyse at home, in order for a patient to qualify for the allowance.
These rules have been applied to new applications since then, and to existing recipients as and when their cases come up for review or reassessment. The new rules disqualify approximately three-quarters of kidney patients from the attendance allowance. People who dialyse twice a week, for however long, no longer qualify, and those who dialyse for three times a week during the day for fewer than six hours are also ineligible.
From information kindly given to me by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), I understand that the vast majority of the patients in Derby dialyse twice a week for a period of 10 hours on each occasion. They are now disqualified from receiving the allowance.
There are five reasons for requiring the Board to relax its stringent requirements. First, there is an inbuilt incentive now not to use the modern, quicker dialysers in order not to lose financially. This cannot be right, particularly if one is trying to use machines more efficiently, and increase the number of patients per machine.
Secondly, an attendant is still needed, whether dialysis takes five hours or six, and a nurse can cost up to £22 a week. Thirdly, the earning capacity of the kidney patient is still restricted because of his disability. He is less able to earn overtime, to work shifts, or travel away from home.
Fourthly, unfair distinctions are now being made between one type of dialysis patient and another, a distinction made not on the degree of disability but on the type of machine available for treatment.
Finally, without the attendance allowance and the resources so provided to pay for an attendant, more kidney patients will be compelled to dialyse in hospital, where there is already a shortage of kidney machines.
If I may put the problem to you, Mr. Speaker, in terms of your own position, it is as if the Fees Office told you that, because the trains to Cardiff were now much quicker, they were going to take away the Speaker's flat and expect you to go home each night.
To overcome this problem—and I cannot over-emphasise the high feelings amongst kidney patients that the Board has generated—I advocate a wider use of discretion, and a less rigid adherence to quite arbitrary and unsuitable rules. I believe that discretion should be exercised in such a way as to include the vast majority of kidney patients.
I hope that the Government will acknowledge that the present situation is both unsatisfactory and unfair, and that they will support my Bill. I think that they exhibited some sympathy for what I am trying to do at Question Time on 10th January. On that occasion, the Minister of State for Social Security, whom I am pleased to see here, said, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Derby, North:
I fully take the point that my hon. Friend makes. It raises the question whether the attendance allowance is a suitable benefit for


such patients, in the light of the Board's decision. In that respect, the Government would be prepared to examine the position, but without commitment at this stage.
Later, after renewed pressure from all quarters of the House, he said,
But we want to examine this matter more fully. It has now been brought, quite properly, to the House, and they Government will want to look at it."—[Official Report, 10th January 1978; Vol. 941, c. 1432–3.]
If I am given leave to introduce the Bill, I hope that the Government will support it and give this modest amount of assistance to a small group of people, and I hope that the Minister responsible for the disabled, who I am also pleased to see here, and who is well aware of the problems caused, will lend his weight to this campaign when it comes to discussions with his ministerial colleagues, not least with Treasury Ministers, about the future of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir George Young, Dr. Gerard Vaughan, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Mr. Tony Newton, Mr. Phillip Whitehead, Mr. George Younger and Mr. Peter Morrison.

SOCIAL SECURITY (KIDNEY PATIENTS)

Sir George Young accordingly presented a Bill to extend to kidney patients on dialysis units the attendance allowance provided under Social Security Acts; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th April and to be printer.[Bill 64.]

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND BILL

[2nd ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended, further considered.

New Clause 8

NUMBER OF MEMBERS

'(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1 of this Act in relation to initial members, the number of members of the Assembly shall be one hundred for the second and subsequent ordinary elections for the Assembly.
(2) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall prepare a scheme for one hundred Assembly constituencies and shall submit a report to the Secretary of State for Scotland not later than one year after the date of the first Assembly election.
(3) The members of the Assembly other than the initial members, shall be returned for the Assembly constituencies for the time being specified in an Order in Council under Schedule 1 of this Act and there shall be one member for each such constituency.'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments, also standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith):
No. 79, in Schedule 1, page 40, line 4, at end insert
'for the first ordinary election only'.
No. 80, in page 40, line 8, at end insert
'for the first ordinary election only: for the second and subsequent ordinary elections the electorate of any Assembly constituency shall be as near the electorate of any other Assembly constituency.'
No. 81, in page 40, line 14, at end insert
'for the first ordinary election only'.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to raise this matter, for two reasons. The first is that we have little enough time anyway for discussion of the amendments today. The second is the


unnecessarily long-winded point of order put by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery).
Amendment No. 117, standing in my name, was properly in order in the initial stages and on the Amendment Paper, but it was not selected for discussion in the earlier proceedings because it required a technical paving amendment. Hon. Members do not put down technical paving amendments on Report in order to suit the convenience of the House, and because no such amendment had been put down, Amendment No. 117 was not scheduled for discussion on Report.
As soon as this matter arose—it could not be found out until yesterday that Amendment No. 117 had not been selected—I tabled the necessary paving amendments, Nos. 126 and 127, but Amendment No. 117 has still not been selected for discussion. At times, it is possible, within discretion, for a manuscript amendment to be acceptable, but certainly a starred amendment is frequently allowed to be discussed.
In this case, we have an amendment which is not starred because it has been down for weeks—indeed, for months, since we previously had it down on the Scotland and Wales Bill. The only amendments starred in this connection are the necessary technical paving amendments. This seems to me to widen the possibility of discretion being applied, not in order that the starred amendments may be discussed but so that the substantive amendment, No. 117, may be discussed.
The question of whether Scotland is to become a separate State is manifestly, at least to everyone in Scotland, the crucial subject with which we have to deal. It is a subject that has occupied Scotland over the last seven or eight years. Yet it now appears that it may be the one topic throughout the Bill which will never even have been discussed.
I therefore ask for reconsideration on your part, Mr. Speaker, so that it will not be the technicality that prevents it, and that, if it is prevented, it will be understood to be by reason of the unnecessary amount of time being given by the House to relatively unimportant matters as opposed to this absolutely crucial matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West

(Mr. Buchan) for the way in which he raised his point of order. I gave a good deal of thought to the hon. Gentleman's amendment. He is correct in saying that his original amendment was out of order because it lacked the necessary paving. I am a little surprised that it was only yesterday that he discovered that paving was necessary. I will look at it again, of course, because the list was provisional. But, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, it is the exception rather than the rule for starred amendments to be called. It is not at all a general practice. When I have an opportunity, I will look at this question once again.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether it would be in order for those who have a slightly different point of view to support my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) in his request and add, I hope, a little weight to your consideration. It is not only my hon. Friend who feels that this ought to be considered. I bring to aid the Scottish Council of the Labour Party—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that I will consider this. To continue to discuss the matter further would be to take up time of the House which could be used to greater advantage.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I make no apology for returning on Report, albeit in a rather different form, to the number of Assemblymen. I have found, not with standing the discussions in Committee, that this is one topic which is important for its own sake in relation to constitutional change of this consequence and which arouses considerable interest and discussion within Scotland among those who have been following our debates on the Bill.
Given the restriction of time, I do not intend to go back in detail over the previous discussions that we have had. Indeed, I should prefer to let what I say this afternoon start from the end of the discussion that we had in Committee. I am prepared to accept that the Government in their proposal have adopted what I would call, without being unfair to them, a convenience argument in regard to the number of Assemblymen. If the Assembly is to be established on the


timetable which the Government have envisaged, it is important that it should be related to some extent to the existing constituency boundaries in Scotland.
Accepting the Government's timetable, therefore, I do not regard it as unreasonable that the Government should wish to base their number of Assemblymen—two for each constituency—on the number of existing constituencies in Scotland, with an addition in the case of certain large constituencies, bringing the membership of the Assembly in this way to 150. I shall not argue about that because it would mean going over old ground, and I would rather concentrate at this stage on the merits of the new clause.
4.15 p.m.
The new clause accepts the position as set out in the Bill in regard to the first election to the Scottish Assembly. What my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) and I are seeking to do is to change the number of Assemblymen for the second and subsequent elections to a number which we believe is more appropriate to that required to secure the success and efficient working of the Assembly. We maintain that, by delaying this change until the second and subsequent elections, sufficient time will be given for the Boundary Commission for Scotland to do what is necessary. Provision for this is made in the new clause. The first Assembly will be sitting for four years from the first election, and that will give ample time for the Boundary Commission for Scotland to draw up new constituency boundaries appropriate to the number of Assemblymen that we propose in the new clause.
I turn now to the provisions of the clause, which specifically deals with the number of Members. As I said at the beginning, I accept the Government's figure of 150, which is related, I believe, to what is convenient for getting the Assembly off the ground within the timetable envisaged by the Government. But if we were not under the disciplines and restrictions of the Government's timetable, I question whether we would choose that particular number for membership of the Assembly. I shall seek to support this proposition by a number of simple and fairly straightforward arguments which, I hope, will commend themselves

to hon. Members in all parts of the House, whether they support the principle of the Assembly or not.
My first and most important argument is one that is put very strongly in Scotland, particularly by those who oppose the Assembly, but it is put equally strongly by the supporters of a directly elected legislative Assembly in Scotland with its own Executive. We shall be setting up in Scotland an Assembly of 150 Members and still continuing to have 71 Scottish Members of this House. The effect will be that three representatives will in future be doing the work currently done by one representative.
It might be said by some people that perhaps the representation by one Member is not always entirely adequate, but when we compare the number of constituents that we represent in this House of Commons with the numbers of constituents represented by Members of other Assemblies elsewhere, I do not think it can fairly be said that we represent too many constituents. It does not make sense to multiply by three the number of people who are to do the work. I quite accept that, if we are to have an Assembly, there must be some addition to the number of representatives, but I do not see why it should have to go up from 71 to 150. I do not believe that that makes any sense at all, and for that reason I think that the Government's proposals must be scrutinised very closely indeed.
One of the arguments of those who oppose the establishment of the Scottish Assembly is put on the ground of economy. That is an important argument. But, as I believe that the establishment of an Assembly will improve our system of government in the United Kingdom and extend our democracy, I have accepted all along that there is bound to be a certain increase in expenditure. This is one of the costs that I am prepared to pay for the efficient operation of democracy in this country. Equally, however, those who criticise the proposals in the Bill have a legitimate argument if the scale of the expenditure in setting up an Assembly is beyond what is reasonably justified. I believe that those who criticise the Bill on grounds of expense and lack of economy have a legitimate argument when they point to the number of Members proposed.
For these reasons, I believe that the number of Assemblymen ought not to be related in the long term to the convenience of the initial electoral arrangements. It ought to be related to what is best for carrying out the work of the Assembly in the long term once it is established.
I wish to make a third point which is equally important. I personally have no doubt that when the Assembly elections take place there will be a sufficiency of persons offering themselves for election to the Assembly. But, given that Scotland has a population of just over 5 million, we must accept that there is a physical limit to the number of people who are suitably qualified, or with the proper motivation and ability, to offer themselves for public service of one sort or another. I think that that is true, particularly with regard to the initial stages of the Assembly.
The Scottish people will then be electing representatives to the European Parliament, the United Kingdom Parliament, the Assembly, regional councils and district councils. Given the population base in Scotland, I believe that we are putting far too great a demand on the number of suitable persons who should be elected to these different offices.
Of course, in the longer term my argument is that there ought to be a subsequent consequential change in local government in order to return local government to single-tier, all-purpose authorities. That would remove one tier of government. I believe that we should seriously consider this. But, even if we did that in the longer term, I still believe that it does not make sense, nor is it necessary, to increase the size of the Assembly's membership beyond what is necessary for the efficient operation and servicing of the Assembly.
Given that three people will be doing the work of one, given an economy in expenditure and given that we want the best use of those from within Scotland who are prepared to serve their fellow men in public life, I believe that the Government's figure is set too high.
In that situation, what should be the right number? This is open to debate. The Government chose their number for electoral convenience with regard to the first election. I am interested in the

second and subsequent elections. I personally would favour a number of 71 based on the existing parliamentary constituencies, and I put forward that argument in Committee. That case can certainly be argued, although it is not one that I am arguing today.
What I have chosen to do is to base the new clause on the recommendations and conclusions of the Royal Commission on which the Bill is based. It is significant that in paragraphs 789 and 790 of the report, and also in the summary of conclusions in paragraph 1140, the Kilbrandon Commission came quite firmly to the conclusion that the best size for an Assembly should be "around 100" Members. For understandable reasons the Commission did not come to a precise recommendation but stated "around 100".
I do not consider that the figure of 150 which the Government have proposed can in any sense be described as "around 100". Since the Royal Commission decided on a figure of "around 100", the onus must be on the Government to say why for the longer term they have chosen a figure of 150. That is the first question I put to the Government. I hope that they will explain precisely why, for the longer term, they have rejected the argument of the Royal Commission.
I want to make another point with regard to the Royal Commission's report. While the Royal Commission was not unanimous—of course, there was a minority report as well—it is significant that there were no reservations about the figure of "around 100".
In paragraphs 789 and 790 of its report, the Royal Commission specifically examined the number of members in the Northern Ireland House of Commons. It is entirely appropriate in this context to look at the experience of the one subsidiary Assembly which had already been set up within the United Kingdom. That is why, in the new clause, I have tended towards 100, as suggested by the Royal Commission, rather than my initial choice of 71.
The Kilbrandon Commission questioned whether a Scottish Assembly of the size of around 50 Members would be adequate to carry out its work. One has to bear in mind that a Scottish Assembly will have to support its own Executive and Ministers as well as junior Ministers


in the form of Whips and so on. As well as these practical arguments, a number of other countries have Assemblies of the size which the Royal Commission suggests.
Another argument in favour of the Royal Commission's proposal—this would particularly have been the case had the Assembly been elected on proportional representation—is that the majority party, even under a first-past-the-post system, might not be in a majority numerically. It might be a minority Government. Where there was no formal coalition between two minority parties, one might get the largest single party governing with the support, but without the participation, of another minority party. In those circumstances, it would be important for the Assembly to be of a size which enabled it to support a full Executive. I therefore believe that an Assembly of "around 100" Members is more appropriate than one of 70 and certainly more appropriate than one of 150.
There is a further argument that I want to put forward. I have already referred to the United Kingdom's one precedent, Stormont. It is also worth looking at other countries to see what size of Assemblies they have. Probably the most appropriate countries to look at are ones with a federal structure, because we want to make a comparison with countries which have subsidiary rather than sovereign Assemblies.
I should make three comparisons, with Australia, Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany. I would mention in passing that Australia, with a population of 13 million, has a Parliament of only 125 members. But, of course, it has a second Chamber as well. My comparison is not with the federal but with the State level. There are two close comparisons with Scotland, with its population of 5 million. One is New South Wales, which has a population of 4·6 million and a main Chamber of 96. It also has a second Chamber of 60, but it is the main Chamber which matters for my purposes. Victoria, the only other State with a comparable population—3·5 million—has a main Chamber of 73. From these comparisons, one can see that the Government's figure of 150 is very high.
4.30 p.m.
In Canada I shall make a comparison with two provinces. Ontario, with a population of 7·7 million, has a main Chamber of 117 and Quebec, with a population of over 6 million, has a main Chamber of 108. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will see from the examples of Australia and Canada, both of them Commonwealth countries with subsidiary Assemblies, that the size of the main Chamber is very much smaller than that proposed by the Government for Scotland.
My other comparison is with the Federal Republic of Germany and the example of Bavaria, which has a population of 11 million and a Chamber of 204 Members. Bavaria's population is nearly double that of Scotland. Therefore, by comparison with that region, a Scottish Assembly of 100 Members would be much more appropriate.
It is also interesting to look at other countries which have a unitary system of government. New Zealand, with a population of 3 million, has 87 Members and Norway, which is often compared with Scotland and has a population of 4 million, has 116 Members. I hope I have shown the House that other countries, working under the system of government most comparable to that which we are trying to set up in Scotland, have much smaller Assemblies than the one proposed by the Government.
I hope that the new clause will have the support of both sides of the House. I put it forward in the interests of the best working of the Scottish Assembly. An Assembly of the size that I, propose is much more in accordance with the wishes of people in Scotland. It is not necessary to have an Assembly of the size proposed by the Government. By proposing it, the Government are gratuitously yielding to the arguments of those who oppose the Assembly on the ground of additional cost and bureaucracy. I hope that for the second and subsequent elections the Government will accept an Assembly of the size that I suggest.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given further consideration to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). I am prepared to add his Amendment, No. 117,


to the provisional list, but I must remind him and the House that it falls within the business that must be dealt with before 7.30 p.m. It is the last of the amendments to be disposed of by 7.30 p.m. Therefore, the hon. Member might be being more optimistic than is justified. Nevertheless, I shall add his amendment to the list.

Mr. Dalyell: I shall try to set an example in making short speeches. I accept straight away that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has put forward his case in a genuine manner, but I disagree with him on one point. To suggest that there are not 150 suitably qualified people to come forward in Scotland has never been part of the argument of any of us who criticise this whole exercise. I do not doubt that there are a great number of people who would make excellent Assembly Members in Scotland, and it is a very bad argument—I would not call it arrogant—to suggest that there might be a shortage of suitably qualified people.
I think that an Assembly of 71 members, as he suggested at one stage, is the worst of all possible worlds. Nothing would more highlight the rivalry between the Scottish Assembly and this House than having a one-to-one ratio. That would only heighten conflict.
I come to the heart of the matter—the question of exactly what the Assemblymen will do. What will be their role? The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns let the cat out of the bag when he said that there must be subsequent consequential changes for local government. The Lord President may say "Nonsense" sotto voce—

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I did not say a word.

Mr. Dalyell: Then that was another conversation. We all have to face the fact that a great number of people in Scotland believe that the Assembly will have to do something about changing local government. For the reasons that the hon. Member gave it would be impossible to hold the European elections, the Westminster elections, the Assembly elections and the regional, district and community council elections together. It is often said that the only thing that the Assembly has

to do is somehow to wave a magic wand and get rid of the regions.
There might be an argument for doing that, but whatever else it is it is not devolution of decision-making, and it will not bring government closer to the people. If the Lord President is concerned about bringing government in Scotland closer to the people he must stick with my point of view rather than come down in favour of an Edinburgh Assembly. The regions, warts and all, are very much closer to the people than an Assembly in Edinburgh would be.
That is where we come to the crux of the whole matter. Precisely what are these 150 Assemblymen to do? Certainly they cannot spend all their time legislating. What else can they do, other than meddle in local government?
It was stated at Question Time today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown)—that any changes in, for example, the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (No. 2) Bill will be undertaken by the Assembly. This may be so. There are a number of other contentious matters that the Assembly could undertake. However, there will be 150 full-time Members sitting in Edinburgh for 37 weeks of each year, every year. They cannot engage themselves solely in tinkering with Scottish legislation and it is very unnatural that they should do so.
What will be their relation to local government? Are they to be part-time or full-time politicians? Will most of them have other jobs as well? Until we are clear on those matters it is no good selecting any number for the Assembly.
People who are in the position of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns really must state their ideas precisely when they talk about subsequent and consequent changes relating to local government. Here we come up against the controversy that is taking place in The Scotsman at present between Miss Isobel Lindsay of the Scottish National Party and James Anderson, the convener of the Labour Central Region. Of course there are very real issues here.
If one makes an attempt to get rid of the regions—an idea that is superficially popular—what would one replace them with? If they are replaced with all-purpose authorities, that means that we


will have 60 education authorities, 60 planning authorities, 60 housing authorities, and so on. How would one break up the functions of the districts and the regions? After all the midnight oil that has been burned in reforming local government once in the last decade, are we prepared to undertake it again?

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument as sympathetically as I can. He may wish to retain the regional authorities in the Lothian or Central Regions, but may I draw his attention to the situation on Tayside, where the city of Dundee is flanked by two rural counties? With the best will in the world, it is difficult to have common policies for education and school building programmes in areas such as Angus and Perth, which have individual characteristics, and in the city of Dundee, which has always been a self-governing local government unit. Would not a change of that kind be beneficial to all three areas on Tayside if the regions were abolished?

Mr. Dalyell: If the hon. Gentleman is right, those who hold high positions in his party should not suggest that by getting rid of the regions there would be a saving in expensive and highly paid local government personnel. If one follows through that argument, there will be three directors of education for Tayside rather than one. That is the logical conclusion.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that within the regional authority structure there are innumerable deputy directors of education? There is a pyramid structure, some of which would be unnecessary if the process were simplified.

Mr. Dalyell: Any change that will lead to more expense appears to be a recipe for the proliferation of senior posts.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) said that this had nothing to do with the new clause. I disagree with him. One cannot sensibly discuss the number of Assemblymen without being clear about their role. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns gave the game away yet again. Many of those who want the Assembly require an Assembly that will be deeply involved in local government. They can

have such an Assembly, but let us not pretend that this is devolution in the literal sense of the word. For all my shortcomings, I claim that I am the best devolutionist of all, because I want local authorities to be local and not Edinburgh-based.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear that the powerful argument for having the present units in local government was perhaps most extensively set out in education than in any other area of activity? It is not possible, in modern circumstances, to provide a wide basis of education in Scotland unless we have units of government that are considerably larger than were the old councils. I have considerable sympathy with the objectives of the new clause, but it would be wrong to found that on the likelihood of demolishing the new local government structure—not because one does or does not want to do so but because it is simply impracticable.

Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Lady was a member of the Royal Commission that discussed these matters endlessly. Had there been any better answer available to the right hon. Lady and her colleagues on that Commission, it would have occurred to them.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I should like to say a few words of welcome on the new clause and the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) did not set a good example when he instanced the case of local government. The House will agree that although there might be a case for changing local government, the matter should be considered on its merits and not in relation to any new plan for an Assembly or any other constitutional structure.
My hon. Friend was right to say that ideally the right figure should be introduced for the first election and not just for the later one. That may be the basis of some of the arguments that have been advanced against the new clause.
The most obvious argument relates to redundancy. I wonder how we would get on in this House if there were a written


constitution saying that our numbers should be reduced by 100 in the next election. We might then look at each other's health and voting record with greater interest than we do at present.
Another argument which could be used relates to consumer interests. This might invite confusion for constituents if they were coming along to constituency surgeries to consult their European or Westminster Members of Parliament, or their Assemblymen. If the boundaries were radically different from each other, this could be a problem in city areas where, even now some constituents find difficulty in knowing to which constituencies they belong.
The third argument is the wait-and-see argument. This is based on the view that it might be best to wait and see how the Assembly gets on before we make any decision about the right number of Members for the future. If we take the wait-and-see argument, my answer is that I am unaware of any Parliament which has voluntarily reduced its numbers in a substantial way. This is the kind of thing that everybody approves in principle to make the use of manpower more effective, but it is not the kind of thing that is done voluntarily. The Government constantly exhort industry to use its manpower more effectively. Therefore, I doubt whether the Scottish Assembly, if it is ever established, will voluntarily reduce its numbers as a matter of discretion.
A further argument is that these boundaries will cause problems when constituents visit Members' surgeries. Will a constituent have to consult three different Members—one for Europe, a second for Westminster and a third for the Assembly?
The hon. Member for West Lothian said that constitutional problems may will arise if the Assembly is established, and that matters may be made even more complex if every hon. Member at Westminster is to have one person covering his home area. This may cause great problems of demarcation and the line of responsibility may not at first be clear.

Mr. James Lamond: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that following the setting up of an Assembly there might be a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament

coming from Scotland to the Westminster Parliament? That would smash to smithereens all questions of boundaries, because the boundaries of the Westminster constituencies would have changed.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right. This is an argument which the Minister has often used—that one could not hope in that situation to have an Assembly and to keep 71 Members of Parliament here. However, most of us accept the fact that it is not advisable to reduce the amount of Scottish influence at Westminster, although there will be complaints of that sort.
We must bear in mind the subject of consumer interests. We must remember that constituents will have problems in knowing to which areas they belong, who is speaking for them, and on what. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) will probably suggest that he receives letters addressed to him at the City Chamber and the Strathclyde regional headquarters. My wife constantly receives telephone calls from callers who expect me to be in the City Chamber for one day a week. People have been confused, and this will add to it.
Having said that, and appreciating that it is difficult to strike a balance, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns was right to say that if the proposal for 150 Assemblymen goes ahead without any arrangement for changing the situation, there will be a ridiculous situation involving over-government, with too many politicians chasing too little authority.
It means that in place of the jobs done by one, we shall under the Bill have three or four representatives. There will be either a parliamentary constituency with one Member of Parliament and two Assemblymen, or a constituency with one Member and three Assemblymen.
I doubt whether the Government will be taken seriously in telling British Rail, the British Steel Corporation and others to use their manpower more effectively if the Government are creating a situation of over-government.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns pointed to the ridiculous structure involving European Members, Westminster Members and Scottish Assemblymen. It will mean far too


much over-government. Those who possess common sense will agree that we should try to reduce the amount of over-government and to minimise the damage done by the Bill. I believe that we should give full support to the new clause. If the Government have a better idea for reducing the numbers, let them bring it forward. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns that the Government's proposals are wrong. They will mean too many public representatives.

Mr. Dalyell: If the hon. Gentleman wants the numbers reduced, will he say how much he thinks that Scottish Assemblymen should be paid in relation to Westminster Members?

Mr. Taylor: I have made clear that I do not want the Bill to go through. If it comes into effect we must ensure that it does the minimum damage and we must reduce the areas of conflict.
I do not know what salary will be right for Assemblymen. If it is a full-time job it should be a full-time salary, but if they are full-time there will not be enough work for them to do. We shall run into a problem similar to that faced by regional councillors. It is difficult to fit in with an ordinary job the hard work involved in being a regional councillor, but if councillors were paid a full-time salary there would be the problem of their having too much time. This is one of the complexities of over-government.
We cannot allow the Bill to stand in its present form. If the Government have better proposals for reducing the numbers they can bring them forward in another place. In the meantime, we should vote for the new clause to indicate that the House and the people of Scotland would not be happy if the Scots had inflicted on them three or four Members in place of the present one, with European Members to come on top of the others.
Scotland could become the most over-governed and, consequently, the most overtaxed, country in the world. We must do all we can to avoid that.

Mr. J. Grimond: I very much regret that we have not explored new methods of running a democratic Assembly, but this is not the time to start on that. In considering constitutional change, we should see how much

can be done at local level and work up from that. I rather regret the word "devolution". It is clear that the prospect for Scotland is one of gross and appalling over-government.
We shall have a Parliament, an Executive and a bureaucracy on the Continent, in London and in Edinburgh, in addition to the Scottish regions and districts. This House is the largest elected Assembly in the world and the House of Lords is by far the largest Assembly of any sort. It is clear that the size of these Chambers is not going to be reduced.
What should go? I still maintain that the regions should go. They should never have been set up. We should have one tier of local government, but this is not the moment to explore that proposition.
What else goes depends on one's view of the development of the Assembly. I believe that it will be wholly unstable. It cannot remain in the state in which we shall set it up. No Assembly would be able to go on without powers to tax. It will demand powers over the economy, nationalised industries and the public sector that are far greater than those included in the Bill.
If I did not think that, I would be persuaded by the cogent arguments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who said in Committee that this House would still devote a lot of time to matters that are not to be devolved. As I do not believe that the situation is stable and that more work will go to the Assembly, in the long run there will almost certainly be demands to reduce the number of Scottish Members here. That question, however, was debated in Committee and turned down.
An Assembly with 100 Members would involve constituencies of about 50,000. That is not wholly satisfactory, because that number is bigger than the average community. Even if reducing the size of constituencies will lead to the difficulties rehearsed by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and others, I believe it to be desirable.
A House of 100 Members is not altogether satisfactory, either. It is too big to operate as a Committee, but will it be able to supply the necessary number of Members for an Administration? I have not yet heard a discussion about how big


the Scottish Administration will be. I am not referring only to the Executive. We know how Administrations expand. In this House there are more than 100 people dependent on Government patronage one way or the other. The Scots are not averse to patronage, so how many such people will there be in the Scottish Assembly?
In addition, it is not in the nature of Parliaments or Assemblies to refrain from legislation. One often hears complaints about the fact that there is too much legislation, but when a Member is lucky enough to draw a place in the Ballot he does not throw the chance aside; he scrounges around for a Bill to inflict upon the wretched public. The appetite for legislation appears to be insatiable, and that will extend to the Assembly.
The bureaucracy in Edinburgh, like all bureaucracies, will grow. I hope that the Assembly will be a part-time Parliament, but I do not have such optimistic illusions as to believe that it will work out like that.
I would not be altogether satisfied with an Assembly of 100 Members representing constituencies of 50,000. I must declare an interest, since if that were the average size of constituencies we would go back to Orkney and Shetland being represented by one Member. Very often we get Members who are capable of doing that, but we cannot rely on an endless flow of great Members for Orkney and Shetland. It would be more satisfactory for them to have a Member each. However, this is not, perhaps, a matter that should influence us decisively.
It would be upsetting for the Assembly, which will have enough of an upsetting time anyway, if it knew that at the end of its first session it was to be reduced by one-third. If the new clause is to be considered seriously, the initial numbers must be allowed to continue for longer than that. The Assembly will have enough trouble without one-third of its Members contemplating instant unemployment. In such circumstances, it could be difficult to get people to stand, though I believe that there is a pool of talent that will go to Edinburgh rather than come here.
I think that we should stick to the proposals in the Bill, though I agree that it will have to be looked at again soon and that there is much to be said for writing in a provision that we should have to look at it again.
I do not agree that we should reduce the numbers after four years. We need more experience of the way in which the Assembly is working, so that we can see whether 100 Members can supply an Administration and a sufficiently independent Opposition to make it work.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: We are discussing the size of the Assembly. The figures that have been mentioned are the existing 150, the Royal Commission's recommendation of 100 and the 71 suggested by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith).
This is not the occasion for a wide-ranging debate on the reorganisation of the structure of local government. That is for an entirely separate occasion.
The amendment is worth consideration. If we are guided by the Royal Commission's figure of 100, based on existing Westminster constituencies, that works out at 1·5 Members of the Assembly per constituency. It would be very difficult to organise that representation. I do not know how one can have half a Member in a constituency.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns was nearer the mark with his suggestion of 71. That would be an easier number in relation to parliamentary constituencies. He suggests that we should by all means have 150 members in the Assembly for the first Assembly elections but for the second and subsequent Assembly elections he is suggesting a figure of about 100.
That process would create one of the most difficult prospects that any electoral machine could possible contemplate. When we elect the Assembly, we are hoping to recruit the most suitable and able men and women fit to serve in this system of Scottish government, and we shall be expecting some of those candidates, when successful, to give up good jobs, promotion prospects and security of employment.
I believe that we shall find that extraordinarily difficult. I am basing my contention on the figure of 100, which the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns mentioned. It would entail redundancies through the reduction of 50 Members in the second and subsequent elections. No candidate will give up a good job and security of employment for four years if, at the end of that time, he can no longer be a candidate for the Assembly and will be in the wilderness.
None of us would like to be faced with the same situation, with a reduction of one-third in the size of this Parliament, knowing that it meant that one-third of the present number of Members would not be coming back, that they would be redundant, many of them having given up jobs and promotion only to find themselves in the wilderness.
I should hate to impose that suffering on Members of the Assembly, but that is exactly what would happen. It would be most inconsiderate to pass any amendment—not just the present new clause—which would create an impossible situation of that nature. We want to recruit all that is best, persuading people to give up their security of life to be elected to an Assembly for four years, yet they would be sacked on the spot, without the consent of the electorate, simply because the numbers were reduced at the second and subsequent elections.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear that contention in mind, because it is an important consideration. We found a similar situation when we reorganised local government. That was one of the main reasons why we could not attract some of the best men and women available—simply because there was no security of tenure, quite apart from the hazards of the popular poll.
I visualise that if the new clause were passed it would do the election of the Assembly incalculable harm. It would discourage some of the best men and women that we have in Scotland—there are in Scotland many excellent men and women who would make suitable Assembly Members—from taking part, simply because one-third of those elected would know that in four years they would be redundant and would lose the opportunity of continuing—in spite, perhaps, of the excellent service that they had given

to their constituents—as Members of the Scottish Assembly.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind—it is one of the most important considerations of all—the human factor involved in the proposal before us. It is not in the interests of the new Assembly to operate in the fashion suggested. I do not think that it would be fair to the men and women who will come forward to serve Scotland. For those reasons, I ask the Government not to accept the new clause.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: The hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) is being pessimistic in believing that persons will not put themselves forward knowing that they will be redundant in four years. He has only to look at the Scottish National Party Bench to see that its 11 Members who worked on that assumption were quite happy to stand for election.
I am happy to support the new clause, which I regard as in many respects one of the most important new clauses that the House will have to consider. I say that because in this area the Government gave almost no forethought to what the appropriate size of the Assembly should be before deciding on the figure presently in the Bill.
When the Royal Commission on the Constitution recommended the creation of an Assembly, it indicated, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, an Assembly of 100. When the Government's White Paper was published that figure had been increased to 138. When the Bill originally appeared before the House the figure had increased from 138 to 150. Like Topsy, the size of the Assembly has increased with every available opportunity. At no time have the Government attempted to justify what the appropriate size for an Assembly ought to be.
We know why the figure went up from the 100 recommended to 138 and to 150. The Government simply used an arithmetical calculation. They wanted to use the existing number of parliamentary constituencies, namely, 71, and they doubled that figure to 142, adding a few more simply to make allowance for very large constituencies. That might have been a useful technical achievement, but in terms


of convincing either this House or the public as a whole that an Assembly of 150 is either necessary or desirable, the Government have not begun to approach the argument. It is depressing that we have had such a short-sighted response from the Administration.
The only explanation that the Government gave to us in Committee was that it was necessary not to have excessive delay before the first election to the Assembly takes place. That might have had a certain superficial attraction at the time. However, not only has the implementation of the Bill been considerably delayed, the new clause refers only to the sccond and subsequent elections of the Assembly, so no Minister can today maintain that the new clause is undesirable or unsatisfactory for the reasons given on the previous occasion.
The election can go ahead. It is going to be necessary, anyway, to delineate new constituencies for the Assembly. Therefore, there is no reason why the House should not consider the appropriate number on its merits rather than on any spurious technical ground.
I was surprised at the speech of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), because, while he seemed to accept the principle that the proposed size of the Assembly was too large, he thought it wrong to put forward a figure of 100 and believed that at some future time consideration should be given to what the appropriate size should be. He must, surely, know that if it is not written into the Bill now there is not the remotest prospect of such a revision ever taking place.
Other hon. Members who have spoken are absolutely correct in saying that there is not the remotest prospect of the Assembly itself deciding to vote for its own reduction in size, for the reason given by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie. One would be expecting the Members of the Assembly to pursue an extraordinary course of action of self-inflicted damage, which is extremely unlikely.

Mr. Grimond: I do not necessarily think that the Assembly will be too big. I think that the total amount of government will be too big. I said that I rather favour reducing the Scottish representation

at Westminster and eventually—certainly in the long run—getting rid of the regions.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Member might be right in putting forward these proposals, but to suggest that the overall burden of government does not relate to the size of the Assembly is misconceived and mistaken. The size of the Assembly has to be considered on two counts. First, one has to consider the job that the Assembly is to do.
Second, one has to consider, in relation to size, the general relations of the people with their elected representations in Scotland. On both those counts, I believe that the proposed size of 150 is far too large and cannot be justified on any of the facts. On no occasion has either the present Minister or the Minister of State who dealt with the previous amendment tried to justify the figure of 150.
There are at least four reasons which justify a reduction in the size of the Assembly from 150 to a much lower figure. I accept that there is no magic in the figure of 100, but what we are debating is the question whether 150 will be the size required or will be far in excess of the needs of the Assembly itself.
First, there is the point already made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), that it is ludicrous to suggest that the job which is at present being done by 71 Members of Parliament—indeed, half the job presently done by 71 Members of Parliament—will in future have to be done by 150 Members of the Scottish Assembly. It is not as though those 150 Members will simply be doing our job. As has been pointed out many times, Scottish Members of Parliament will still have at least 50 per cent. of their work load—on taxation, industry, employment and so on.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree also that travelling will be much easier for those who are doing that half-job in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: It may be true for someone as privileged as I am, living in Edinburgh, to go to the Assembly, but for the right hon. Member for Orkney and


Shetland and for Members coming from Caithness and Sutherland there will be considerable difficulties. It is far easier for me to go to London from Edinburgh than it is for me to go to many parts of Sutherland, because of the inadequate transport to and within that region. Therefore, with respect, I cannot altogether agree with my hon. Friend about that.

Mr. Dalyell: Will not two-fifths—if not more—of the Assemblymen have to keep two homes going, as we do, or have heavy hotel expenses?

Mr. Rifkind: That is right. On this occasion the hon. Gentleman's intervention is both relevant and perceptive, which is an unusual combination, if I may say so. That is a factor to be taken into account.
I do not believe that anyone has seriously suggested, in the House or in any other forum, that half the work of 71 Members of Parliament requires 150 Members in the Assembly. I regard that as a powerful argument.
There is also the not irrelevant consideration of cost. Whether we are in favour of devolution or against it, we all know that, especially at this time, cost is an important matter about which the public are rightly concerned. We must look into the cost of the Assembly and the relative cost according to its size. The new clause would reduce the size of the Assembly by fully one-third, and the consequent reduction in cost to the public Exchequer would be substantial.
We do not know what Members of the Assembly will receive in salary. Indeed, they will be in the same delightful position as we are in, being able to determine their own salary.

Mr. Iain Sproat: It has not done us much good.

Mr. Rifkind: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but one can speculate as to the likely salary. Even on a modest scale, the salary of an Assemblyman is unlikely to be less than £3,000 or £4,000 a year. It would be extraordinary if it were less than that, and there is a substantial probability that it will be a good deal greater. Members of the Assembly may base their salary on the European Parliament rather than on the British House of Commons, in which case they

will be in a very privileged position. But even if they are modest we can expect a salary of at least £4,000 a year.
To reduce the Assembly from 150 to 100 Members would in itself produce a saving to the public as a whole of almost £250,000 every year. One must take into account in addition such factors as the secretarial expenses which, no doubt, will be made available to Members of the Assembly. There will also be the cost of travel—I come back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)—for Members from distant parts of Scotland, as well as the various accommodation expenses which one assumes will be provided.
One can reasonably suggest that in the terms of annual cost to the public the new clause could produce a saving of at least £500,000. That is a substantial amount, and I regard such a saving as a powerful argument in itself for reducing the size of the Assembly.
The third factor—this has not been mentioned so far—is the serious accommodation problems in the building which is to be used for the Assembly. From the outside, the Royal High School is a dramatic, classical and ideal building to house a legislature, but its internal facilities have been the subject of concern among many people who wonder whether the inside of the building is capable of accommodating an Assembly and all those who will be attached to it. That will certainly be a problem.
5.15 p.m.
The problem will be far more serious with an Assembly as large as 150. Anyone who has been into what is to be the debating Chamber in the Royal High School will know that a meeting of the Assembly will be a very crowded occasion. Therefore, the accommodation problem is an additonal factor.
Those are, in a sense, important points, but I accept that they are not necessarily conclusive in themselves. The conclusive factor is the extent to which the Assembly needs 150 Members to do its job properly. Clearly, for the kind of devolution proposed by the Government, the question is whether an Assembly with its own Executive—not only Ministers but junior Ministers—could do its job adequately if


it were of a size smaller than that which the Government propose.

Mr. Grimond: I do not in the least dissent from the hon. Gentleman's view that one crucial question is whether the Assembly can do its job properly with 150 or fewer Members, but there is another crucial point, and that is the size of the electorate and whether 100 Members will give an Assembly of a size suitable to represent the genuine communities in the more sparsely populated parts.

Mr. Rifkind: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall come to that later. One can draw some useful parallels from countries elsewhere in the world. I believe that the case in favour of a reduction to 100 Members, from the basic standpoint of whether the Assembly will be able to do its job properly, is overwhelming.
We do not know the size of the Executive, but, here again, we can make some fairly intelligent guesses because we know what the devolved subjects are. We can assume that there will be a Minister for Education, a Minister for Housing, a Minister for Health, a Minister for Local Government, probably a Minister for Transport and perhaps a Minister for Agriculture. Altogether, that is not more than some eight or nine Ministers, so let us assume a dozen at the most—a dozen Departments. In my view, the number will in the event be slightly smaller.
Let us assume that 12 Members of the Assembly will be members of the Executive. We must assume also that there will be a number of junior Ministers. Inevitably, these things happen, and, even if it is not intended now, the Assembly itself will probably evolve in that fashion. So let us assume a further half-dozen as junior Ministers, giving a total Executive of 18. To make it a round figure, I shall say 20.
Out of an Assembly of 100 under my hon. Friend's new clause, that will leave 80 Members as Back Benchers. On the assumption that the Executive has a majority in the Assembly, at the very least there will be 30 Back Benchers performing their role on the Executive's own side.
No one can seriously suggest that an Assembly with four-fifths of its membership as Back Benchers is not in a

position properly to fulfil all the legitimate requirements of its function and at the same time fulfil its commitments both to its own Members and to the electorate which it serves. To be fair, the Government have never seriously argued that an Assembly of 100 could not fulfil that role.
I come now to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the relative size of the electorate. Here again, we can make international comparisons. I give the example of the State of California, with 20 million people, which has a state legislature of 80 Members. In other words, it has only slightly more than half the number of Members proposed by the Government for Scotland, which has one-quarter of the population of California.
There is the example of the old Stormont Parliament, with much the same structure of government as is proposed for the Assembly, which had 52 Members. If 52 can be sufficient for that Parliament, I do not see how anyone can seriously argue that 100 would somehow be inadequate for the Scottish Assembly.
Perhaps the most remarkable comparisons are seen when we turn elsewhere in the world and consider what is done in independent States, especially those which have a single Parliament or legislature substantially smaller than the proposed Scottish Assembly. I suggest that this is a pretty conclusive argument. For example, Iceland has a Parliament of 60 Members. Israel has a Parliament of 120. Most significant of all, perhaps, is the Netherlands. Without any devolved legislature and only a single Parliament to fulfil its functions as a legislature, the Netherlands has 150 Members—exactly what the Government propose for Scotland although Scotland has a smaller population and the Assembly will have only a limited area of responsibility.
Therefore, whether one looks at the domestic situation or at international comparisons, one can find no justification for the Government's figure proposed in the Bill. So far as I am aware, there is no provincial legislature in Australia with the size of Assembly proposed for Scotland.
If other arguments had been advanced, we could have listened to them and decided whether they were relevant and


weighty, but none has been forthcoming in previous debates.
I come to my final point. I am glad that the Minister of State is now in the Chamber as I wish to refer to some remarks that he made in Committee. I note that the hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I accept that he has been in the Chamber for a good part of the debate. Normally, I do not like to respond to sedentary interruptions, but I am about to quote the hon. Gentleman and, therefore, I am pleased that he has returned to the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman seems to be extremely touchy.
When the House of Commons previously considered this matter in Committee the Minister of State, in reply, commented on my suggestion of an Assembly of only 71 Members. It is an important quotation as it is relevant to that which we are now discussing. The hon. Gentleman gave various reasons that led him to consider that an Assembly of 71 Members would be too small. He then said:
It is principally for that reason that we feel that 71 is too few. It does not follow that double that number—142—is right. There is the practical problem, if we wish to hold an early election, of finding any other basis for the number than the existing parliamentary constituencies.
The hon. Gentleman, following an intervention from the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) came to the important point. He said:
If hon. Members can think of any practical method whereby we can create an Assembly sufficiently large to carry out its responsibilities but perhaps smaller—I am not saying by how much—we shall carefully examine it."—Official Report, 25th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 1443–4.]
That is exactly what my hon. Friend and many of us have tried to do. On that occasion the only objection that the Minister of State brought before the Committee was the need to have an early election and the need not to cause delay by introducing a figure not related to existing parliamentary constituencies. In fact, the new clause relates to the position after the first elections to the Assembly. We know that at that stage the Boundary Commission will, in any event, have to redraw the parliamentary map for Scotland so as to create Assembly constituencies. That duty is written into the Bill. There is no question of any delay

being created by the adoption of the new clause.
In Committee the Minister accepted that there was a powerful case for a smaller Assembly. He accepted that there was no automatic reason for double the number of parliamentary constituencies being the appropriate figure. Indeed, he asked hon. Members to provide a "practical" alternative.
My hon. Friend has provided just such an alternative, unless the Government have been able to concoct any new arguments that they were not able to adduce on the previous occasion. I hope that we shall not merely have a blank response from the Minister. This is a constructive proposal of major importance. All the arguments that have been used so far point to a smaller Assembly rather than the size proposed by the Government. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to make a response that is encouraging and not depressing.

Mr. James Lamond: The hon. Members for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind) have argued persuasively about the number of Members who should be in the Assembly following the first election. I am tempted to support them, but there is the difficulty that has been raised by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Pentlands quoted a remark of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, when he said that if a "practical" alternative were suggested it would be considered. That is where the difficulty lies.
I share the view of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that in future Scotland will be very much over-governed. Before I came to the House—perhaps this explains my interest in the Bill—I was a member of the council in Aberdeen. It was an all-purpose authority. At that time there were two layers of government inflicted upon the citizens of Aberdeen. There was the local council and the Westminster Parliament. I venture to suggest that the citizens were well satisfied with that arrangement. Certainly, a number of the electors voted against my party from time to time, but, in the main, they kept it in power. Not too often did they vote against it. We now find that in Aberdeen there is the community council, the


district council and the regional council with its headquarters in Aberdeen. It is a substantial bureaucracy.
There will be the Assembly, and there will continue to be two Westminster Members returned from Aberdeen; at least two Members will be returned to this place in future. In addition, there is the European Parliament. As yet, these layers of government have managed only to confuse the people of Aberdeen.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: Having listened to what my hon. Friend has said in the past few minutes I am not surprised that he is opposing the Bill. It seems that he does not understand the basis on which the Bill is founded. The number of authorities he has mentioned is no greater than the number that obtained prior to reorganisation. We had the county council and the city of Aberdeen council. The community council, which is purely an advisory body, is the only additional layer of government. The Assembly will take the place of this Chamber in dealing with Scottish legislation. I hope that my hon. Friend will turn to that point.

Mr. Lamond: I do not follow my hon. Friend's intervention.

Mr. Gourlay: The Assembly will be the legislative Chamber.

Mr. Lamond: It may be that I understand what my hon. Friend is attempting to say—namely, that there will he no more Scottish legislation proposed in this place. However, there will be a division of authority among a greater number of layers of government. My hon. Friend said that there was a county council and a city of Aberdeen council when the organisation of local government was different in different parts of Scotland. The city councils were all-purpose authorities, so there were no representatives on the county councils. The situation was exactly as I have described. There were two layers of government, the city of Aberdeen council and the Westminster Parliament.
I share the view of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, but I do not think that it has any relevance to the clause. Even if we reduce the number of Members at the Assembly, the

Assembly layer of government will still be there. Scotland will be no less over-governed merely because there are fewer Members at the Assembly. The additional layers of government will still lie heavy upon the shoulders of the citizens of Aberdeen and other citizens of Scotland. That argument does not sway me to support the clause.
I listened carefully to all the arguments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands. The hon. Gentleman said that his first three arguments were not crucial. His final argument was argued persuasively and I accept most of what he said. His other arguments, that related, for example, to accommodation and cost, are not really relevant. If I were satisfied that the Assembly should have 250 Members, the fact that it would cost a little more would not in any way dissuade me from supporting such an Assembly.
The hon. Gentleman referred to an extra £500,000. Standing on its own, that is a great deal of money, but we must consider it in terms of the total budget that is to be allocated by the Assembly to various functions. When that sum is considered in that light it is not so serious, especially if it is to mean that we get the number right and that we do not try to skimp the Assembly.
The argument that we might not be able to find sufficient people to fill the places available in the Assembly is quite spurious. If there were any shortage of people coming forward, it would not be felt at Assembly level. There will be plenty of people willing to stand for the Assembly under the present rules, which will allow for 150 Members to be elected. They will continue at that level in future. There will be no shortage of candidates. There may be a shortage further down if good people are removed. In Aberdeen, even at the level of community councils, there would appear to be no shortage of candidates, but there is a shortage of electors.
5.30 p.m.
I should like to relate the extraordinary case of a good friend of mine—not a member of the Labour Party—who was one of three candidates for a seat on one of the community councils in Aberdeen. His name is George Kindness. He was elected to his seat on the community council by the solitary vote cast in the


election. In other words, of three candidates, one was elected. It did not have to be George. He was not aware that he could vote for himself. Neither of the other two candidates appeared to be aware that they could have voted for themselves either. This is an absolutely genuine case certified by the returning officer after a properly conducted election at which clerks were available to count the votes and so on. One vote was cast for my friend and he was duly elected.

Mr. Dalyell: Was he unmarried?

Mr. Lamond: No. As a matter of fact, he was married, and it was not his wife who voted for him. She obviously abstained.
When we get such an extraordinary situation as that we begin to realise just how over-governed Scotland is. I do not think that there will be any shortage of candidates provided that the size of the Assembly remains at 150 Members.
Reference was made to the difficulties involved if we start with 150 Members and reduce that number to 100 after four years. There are practical difficulties which cannot be overcome. The squabbling and fighting among the Members would be tremendous from the very day that the Assembly began its work. If we start with 71 Members and, after the first election, increase that number to 100, I think that would be more likely to succeed, but, as the Minister explained earlier, the Government regard 71 Members as too small a number. Indeed, the very fact that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns has selected 100 as being suitable shows that he also thinks that 71 is too small a number. To start with 71 Members would be wrong. It would get the Assembly off on the wrong foot. Unfortunately, from a practical point of view, if finally we want to arrive at 100 Members, it is the only way to do it.
In view of the practical difficulties that would be set for the Assembly if it were to have this substantial reduction in numbers after four years, I cannot support the new clause, although it has been argued extremely persuasively.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I want to look at this matter, as did the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond). in a practical way.
I should like to be able to support my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) who introduced the new clause. I do not intend to vote against the clause, but I do not feel that I can support it. If, instead of suggesting that the number of Assemblymen should be reduced to 100, he had suggested that it should be reduced to zero, I should have been with him all the way. Unfortunately, he did not go that far. Therefore, I cannot go with him all the way.
I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the extra costs involved. A great deal of money will be wasted. That is one of the reasons why I am completely opposed to an Assembly.

Mr. Gourlay: Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot argue that he is prepared not to support changing our democracy on the basis of cost. I am sure that when we decided that we had to fight Hitler to protect democracy no one in this country ever questioned the cost. That is surely a fallacious argument.

Mr. Galbraith: No, but it is one matter which has to be taken into account. I object to a Scottish Assembly, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, because I am convinced that it will be used by the Scottish National Party as a method of achieving separation. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) shakes his head. If he thinks about it, I do not see how he can convince himself that we can have an Assembly in Edinburgh and a Parliament at Westminster and continue the unity of the United Kingdom.
Despite the saving of money which would be achieved if we reduced the size of the Assembly from 150 Member to 100 Members, I am not sure that that marginal saving would be worth while or, indeed, beneficial.
At the moment, we have 71 Scottish Members in the Scottish Grand Committee. I now put on a hat which I took off a very long time ago. I speak as a former Scottish Unionist Whip. Of those 71 Members, only 16 represent the official Opposition. The fact that there are only 16 Opposition Members naturally places a considerable burden on them when it comes to manning Committees. That burden is felt by the Opposition in a way which does not affect the Government side.
If the Assembly is fixed at 100 Members, we can expect the Opposition's representation to go up from 16 Members to about 22 or 23 Members, but if the figure of 150 is adhered to, and assuming there is no change in the voting pattern, there would be 32 Opposition Members in the Assembly. That would, of course, make the manning of Committees much easier than it is now. That practical consideration should not be ignored, particularly if we do not want a full-time Assembly. I think that it will be better, if we are to have an Assembly, that it be not full-time. It should be relatively large so as to leave room for a relatively large Opposition from which different Committees can be selected.
The larger rather than the smaller Assembly will also mean that the constituencies will be smaller. Therefore, the Members will more directly represent the wishes and views of the voters. For example, there are 14 seats in Glasgow today. Two of those seats are represented by Conservative Opposition Members—

Mr. Sproat: Very well represented.

Mr. Galbraith: —my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and myself. This little personal plug does not do any harm. If there were only one seat in Glasgow, I am afraid that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart, despite his great abilities, nor myself would be here. In those circumstances the Opposition would be unrepresented. I think everybody recognises that if there were only one Member for Glasgow, he would not be a Member from the Conservative Party. Is the Minister of State following me? I see him scowling. One never knows what his scowls mean.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I was thinking that there would be an easy way out of the difficulty. It would be for the Conservative Party to try to do a little better with the Scottish electorate.

Mr. Galbraith: We shall try to do better, but we must take the situation as it is now.
Two of the 14 seats are represented by Conservative Members of Parliament. If Glasgow were to have only one seat, both

the Minister and I know that it would not be held by a Conseravtive Member of Parliament. Therefore, a large number of Conservatives residing in Glasgow would not be represented in this House.

Sir John Gilmour: I think that my hon. Friend's arithmetic is very chancy. The Bill refers to having either 14 or 28 Members for Glasgow. The idea of only one, which he is talking about, is surely a figment of his own imagination.

Mr. Galbraith: My hon. Friend is not quite right. I was starting with one, but going on to 14 and eventually to 28 Members. As I was about to say, before I was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), if the number of seats in Glasgow were doubled and there were 28 instead of the 14 that we have now, I reckon that the number of Conservative Members of Parliament representing Glasgow seats would increase from two to eight or nine, because the areas of the seats would be smaller and they would, therefore, represent more closely the Conservatives who lived there.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is not the logic of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) is saying that if he wants the Conservatives to be properly represented—which I am sure is an admirable wish—he should advocate electoral reform?

Mr. Galbraith: I knew that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) was going to say that. He wants PR, but I want one Member, one seat.
There are disadvantages in reducing the Assembly from 150 to 100 Members. A reduction would mean that the seats would be larger whereas with 150 Members they would be smaller. The smaller the seat the more likely is the Member able to represent the views of constituents. What I am trying to say despite interruption is that on the grounds of being more democratic a larger Assembly is better than a smaller Assembly and that a larger Assembly would make the manning of Committees easier.
A larger Assembly is better than a smaller Assembly and I should, therefore, be chary of reducing the number of Assemblymen to below 150—unless we were to reduce it to none at all. I believe that that would be the best solution. I hope that the House will agree with me


when we vote on the Third Reading next week.

Mr. Hector Monro: I shall not follow the arithmetic of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). He has made a study of the problem and speaks from experience. However, he has not followed his logic through. I accept that he does not believe in an Assembly at all, but surely it is better to have one of 100 Members than of 150 Members. There is a strong case for voting for the new clause.

Mr. Galbraith: Like me, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has been a Scottish Conservative Whip. Does he not recognise the difficulties involved in manning Committees when there are only a few Opposition Members? I urge my hon. Friend to look at that from a practical point of view.

Mr. Monro: I do not want too many Committees.
The Minister should say how many Assemblymen he would have chosen if there had been no constraints by the Boundary Commission. If he is free to say that we should have X number of seats, what does he think is the ideal number? He has plucked out of the sky the figure of 150 because it is convenient and fits in with the present constituency boundaries and because of the difficulties of changing those boundaries in a reasonable time.
It is a major mistake to start off with the wrong number of Members of the Assembly. It is important that the Minister should explain why the figure of 150 is right, and follow up what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said about what the Assemblymen will do. This is crucial.
I am in favour of devolution but not of the way in which the Government propose to implement it. I want to know what the Minister envisages will be in the programme for the Assembly and what the Members of it will do in the first stages. The only disagreement I have with my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is that I think that it would be wrong to start out with 150 Members and then to reduce the number to 100. I should like to see 100 Members at the

beginning. Where there is a will, there is a way. If this House and the House of Lords consider that 100 is the right number, I am sure that this could be arranged, if the spirit is willing.
5.45 p.m.
There are many unknown factors, not the least of which is in Schedule 1. This sets out the means by which Scotland will be divided into Assembly constituencies and is relevant to this argument. Under Schedule 1 Part II paragraph 11, the Boundary Commission is given some licence to depart from the strict application of the population basis for the size of an Assembly constituency. I should like to know the Minister's thinking on this. It would be wrong for the constituencies to be based solely upon population and for them to be weighted heavily towards those with large populations. Under paragraph 11 the Boundary Commission can depart from this
if special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of an Assembly constituency, appear to them to render the departure reasonable".
That allows the Commission to depart from the strict population base. We want to know something about that.
In an earlier debate I raised this matter in relation to Inverness, which is the largest constituency and has a large population. Other large constituencies have small populations. My own constituency is large and has a large population. It is second only to Inverness in size and population. Yet, under the present formula, I do not think that my constituency would qualify for a third Member. It might if the calculation were based geographically.
It would be wiser to stick to the smaller-sized Assembly, despite the problems of population.

Mr. Galbraith: My hon. Friend will recognise that we are having a debate in this Chamber, and although there are over 600 Members, not many of them are here. We do not need many Members of an Assembly. If the new Assembly had the same proportion of Members as the House of Commons, there would be only two Members present.

Mr. Monro: But there would be quality. I do not accept that arithmetical formula. If the Assembly had less to


do than we, there would be many more Members available to come to the Chamber and listen to the debate.
There is another issue which is worth thinking about. I do not envisage a substantial change in the regional and district set-up. The present situation will be with us for a long time. I suppose that most hon. Members are in touch with their regional and district authorities at least daily, by telephone or letter. If the poor Executives are to face daily contact with their Assemblymen as well, I wonder when they will get some work done.
There is a case for fewer Assemblymen rather than more. Surely the answer is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) suggested, that the Minister would gladly change the number of Assemblymen if he could see the right formula, and that we should take the 71 constituencies and add the geographical and population weighting. That would bring us up to 85 or 90, not far from the 100 that the Royal Commission proposed. Our acceptance of the new clause would strongly indicate that we want fewer Assemblymen. The details can then be worked out in another place, if the Minister accepts this very reasonable proposal.
We sincerely believe that the figure of 100 is about right, and we must find ways of achieving it. Surely, we could go to the 71 plus weighting with no great difficulty. If it turned out in the years ahead to be wrong, it would be easier to increase the number than to reduce it. Let us start small and, if necessary, enlarge, but for goodness' sake let us not start too large and think that in some mystical way we can ever reduce the number.

Sir John Gilmour: I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has just said. As Ministers know, I am dead against the Assembly's consisting of more than 71 Members. The Bill proposes 150 and Scotland already has 71 Members here. Next year we are to elect eight Members to the European Parliament. We shall then have 229 representatives in the round in Scotland, which is 3¼ Members for every constituency. I do not believe that we can tell the country "We are asking you to bring yourselves up to

date" and at the same time say "It is necessary to have 3¼ Members to do what one Member is doing now."
I agree that in seeking to find the right number for Members we should take good account of what the Royal Commission said. The figure of 100 that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has proposed is a useful figure, because it does not simply double up the present figure but shows that something is being done to try to equate the needs of the different parts of Scotland for representation.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who spoke of Scotland's being over-governed, is clearly worried that Orkney and Shetland each need a Member in the Assembly. That is arguable. He said at the same time that he believed the size of Scottish representation in this House should be reduced. Presumably that would mean that for representation here Orkney and Shetland would have to be combined with Caithness and Sutherland or the Outer Hebrides, which I do not believe is a practical proposition.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked "What will the Assembly do? When will it sit?" I consulted my diary during the debate. I think that during the past parliamentary year we have sat for 30 or 31 weeks. If we devolve a proportion of the business normally done in this House to an Assembly in Edinburgh, will it sit for the same length of time, for 30 or 31 weeks a year and a five-day week?
The trouble is that the more Members the Assembly has, the more there will be a cry to spend more money, to do more this and that. Therefore, the House would be well advised to consider the practicalities of what an Assembly will do. Will it sit five days a week for 31 weeks, for only 20 weeks, or what? Unless we have these questions in mind, how can we decide how many Members are needed to do the job?

Mr. Dalyell: Does it not strike the hon. Gentleman as odd that he should be asking these questions on the 35th day of the deliberations in this House?

Sir J. Gilmour: I did not vote against Second Reading, because I thought that the Bill should be discussed, but I have


made no pretence about my feelings ever since it was published. I shall not vote for Third Reading if it will establish an Assembly of 150 Members, which will mean 3¼ people to do what one person does now. That would be nonsense and should be resisted.
I had some sympathy with the gentleman in the Gallery who addressed us when my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) was speaking. As the gentleman in the Gallery told us, my hon. Friend was undoubtedly talking nonsense in many of the things he said. My hon. Friend was saying "You must have more Members in order to fill up your Committees." But it does not matter if there are 20, 70, 150 or 300 Members of the Assembly; the proportion of the parties is likely to be the same, irrespective of the numbers.

Mr. Galbraith: Surely my hon. Friend will recognise that it is much easier to man Committees if one has 32 Members to choose from instead of 16. It is self-evident.

Sir J. Gilmour: That is a fallacy. One has only to alter the size of the Committee, which is exactly what I managed to do with the Scottish Standing Committee. I had it reduced from 32 to 16 four or five years ago, because we always had an enormous Committee, quite unnecessarily. There is no sense in my hon. Friend's argument. My sympathy still lies with the gentleman in the Gallery.
How do we resolve this matter? The suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries in supporting the new clause is right. It would be difficult to reduce the size. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who said that there must be security of tenure for people who were to be Members of an Assembly. I was under the impression that we submitted ourselves for election and did not think that we had security of tenure. The hon. Gentleman has probably had such security of tenure that he thinks it should be built into the Bill. I do not agree. The likelihood is that an Assembly of 150 Members will be so bored after the first four years that 50 per cent. of them will not seek to stand again.
Because it is difficult to set up an Assembly and then reduce its size, I urge in all seriousness that the new clause, or

its spirit, should be accepted by the Government. If necessary, we could have an Assembly for two years to begin with. The Bill could still be altered so that the first Assembly ran for only two years with 71 Members, and during those two years one could realign the constituency boundaries and produce an Assembly of about 100 Members. I believe that most people would find that much more acceptable. For that reason, I very much hope that the clause will be accepted.

Mr. Sproat: I rise with particular pleasure to support my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), because this must be the only time he and I have agreed so substantially during the entire Committee and Report stages. I supported him in an intervention, but I shall do substantially better tonight. This is perhaps also the only time I have not agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith).
I support the new clause because I think that the Government's proposition is self-evident rubbish. What they propose is that twice the number of Members are needed to do half the work. That must be wrong. It could be proved that to have the same numbers to do half the work would also be wrong. Perhaps half the number to do half the work would still be too many. Certainly, twice the number of Assemblymen to do half the work must be wrong.

Mr. Galbraith: Does not my hon. Friend realise that if we set up an Assembly at all it does not matter what it has to do, and that even if it has practically nothing to do it must still be a certain size? Otherwise, one cannot man committees, one cannot have quorums and so on. There is this practical consideration. This is what is wrong with the whole idea of an Assembly. There should not be an Assembly at all, but if we are to have one let us have one of a reasonable size.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Sproat: I take my hon. Friend's point. But the fact is that if the province of Ontario in Canada, with a population larger than that of Scotland, can manage with just over 100 Members in its Assembly, I have no doubt that Scotland can manage with 100 or fewer, unhappy as I am to disagree with my hon. Friend,


who has done such a splendid job in destroying the Bill in other areas.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that he would be against the number of 71 Members because that would mean one Assemblyman for every Member of Parliament and this would cause conflict of a most obvious nature. I agree that it would. But I do not think that having 100 Members or 150 Members will cause any less difficulty. Conflict will arise in any event. There will be resentment between Westminster and the Assembly if the Bill is passed.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Aidrie (Mr. Dempsey) said that we must think of those poor, erstwhile Assemblymen who would lose their jobs when the Assembly was reduced from 150 to 50. I suggest that we cannot base the British constitution on the putative sentiments of gentlemen who knew very well the problems involved when they took on the job. There may be good arguments in favour of having 150 Members, but the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie were not among them. There must be many hon. Members who are doubtful about holding on to their seats at the next General Election. That has not stopped them from coming here. I do not see why any Assemblyman should be protected any more than we are.
The Government owe it to the House to spell out why 150 should be the number. On previous occasions the Minister of State has said that the number was fixed for administrative convenience and that the number of 150 was chosen because it was the only way the Government could get within the constrictions of the Boundary Commission. Just as the putative sentiments of would-be Assemblymen cannot be a reason for changing the British constitution in a specific way, similarly administrative convenience cannot be a reason for changing the constitution in a specific way. We shall not accept arguments such as those advanced previously by the Minister of State in supporting the figure of 150.

Mr. Dalyell: May I put a parallel consideration to the hon. Member? Can he imagine what the atmosphere in this House would be like if a Parliament of 635 Members were elected and every one

of us knew that there would be only 400 Members during the next Parliament? It would not be a very happy Parliament.

Mr. Sproat: I do not come here to be happy.

Mr. Budgen: That is not the object of the exercise.

Mr. Sproat: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). We are not sent into this world or to Parliament to be made into happy people. There is a Labour candidate in Aberdeen who is trying to take my constituency away from me. I do not lose a minute's sleep over that and I do not think that I would lose any sleep if I were to be told that the number of Members in the House was to be reduced.
The central argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns, stepping tentatively for the first time on to ground which I, among others, have already occupied, was that the whole Scottish Assembly exercise would be an exercise in over-government, involving increased bureaucracy and cost. For me, the central reason for opposing the Bill is the risk that it poses for the break-up of the United Kingdom. But there are also subsidiary reasons for oppossing the Bill, and any way in which we can reduce the number of Assemblymen, the number of bureaucrats and the powers of intervention, muddle and interference pleases me.
The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) made a valuable contribution when he cited the specific example of Aberdeen, which, when he was its distinguished Lord Provost, had only two levels of government to worry about—Westminster and the body over which he presided. Now there are the district council, the regional council, the community council, the Scottish Assembly, Westminster, the European Parliament and so on. There will certainly be over-government. The new clause seeks to diminish that, and I therefore support it. The hon. Member for Oldham, East referred to the case of the gentleman who was elected to the community council by one vote. That is absolutely ludicrous and proves that the people of Scotland have already had enough of over-government.


They have demonstrated, before we reach the referendum, that they are fed up with these extra layers of government.
I agree that reducing the size of a layer does not rid us of a layer. Nevertheless, any diminution of folly is to be welcomed. If for no other reason than that, I support the new clause. The substantial argument is that Scotland will be the most over-governed country in the world if the Assembly comes about. No doubt it will be the most over-taxed country in the world, too, to pay for the over-government. Even if reducing an absurdity by one-third still leaves us with an absurdity, it is a diminution of folly. On that slender ground, I gladly support the new clause.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I hope to persuade the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) to withdraw the new clause. I accept at once that the hon. Member, who is one of the most sincere Members in the House, has put forward the new clause with sincere intent. I hope to prove to the House that there would be dangers and difficulties in accepting the new clause.
Before dealing with that issue, I wish to reply to three general arguments which have been put forward, particularly by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), by my own Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), and by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). They all put the proposition that by reducing the number of Members, as is proposed in the new clause, we would not have the difficulty of starting big and then having to reduce the numbers. They said that it is better to start small and to increase the numbers if the need arises.
This new clause is not about the first elections to the Assembly. It is about what happens after the first elections. We are not talking about how the Assembly will begin. The House has already decided that. I hope that when the hon. Member for Fife, East is considering his attitude to the Third Reading, he will bear in mind that his comments did not relate to the new clause since it does not deal with the first elections. I hope that there is no misunderstanding here.
The second general point which has been raised concerns over-government. In a sense, it does not matter, in terms of the argument of over-government, whether there are 200 Members of the Assembly, 100 Members, 30 Members or 500 Members. The Assembly is a legislative organisation and will be part of the machinery of government. It makes no difference in terms of over-government or under-government. Nor is it a good reason for supporting New Clause 8.
The final general point raised in the debate was in the constant reference to the Royal Commission's suggestion that a 100-Member Assembly would be about the right size. The evidence and the reasons given for that view by the Royal Commission are worth reading. It was talking about a 100-Member Assembly based on the single transferable vote system and on grouping a number of constituencies which were geographically widely scattered.
It is, therefore, not correct to give the impression that the suggestion put forward by the Royal Commission was a straight proposal for a 100-Member Assembly. That is not the case. Its suggestion was, I repeat, for a 100-Member Assembly based on the STV system and on grouping a number of constituencies in the more remote areas of Scotland, therefore having this collection of constituencies to produce something like 100 Members.
The House has decided that we ought not to have a system of proportional representation. It has made its view clear on how the elections to the Assembly should take place. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) seems to doubt the view of the Royal Commission.

Mr. Rifkind: I am not doubting the Royal Commission's view, but the hon. Gentleman should not be putting forward this irrelevant argument. The Royal Commission took the view that an Assembly of 100 Members was quite sufficient to do all the work required of it. The kind of Assembly proposed by the Royal Commission is close to the Assembly proposed by the Government. Whatever the form of election that might be applied, the hon. Gentleman can easily bring forward proposals for an Assembly


of the size proposed by the Royal Commission.

Hon. Members: Hear, Hear.

Mr. Ewing: Despite those "Hear, hears", it is not as simple as that. The Royal Commission clearly qualified the recommendation for a 100-Member Assembly by saying that it would be based on the STV system and would be related also to the grouping of a number of constituencies. If the hon. Gentleman says that that is simple, that is his point of view and he is entitled to it.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Why does the method of election make any difference to the appropriate size?

Mr. Ewing: Unfortunately from the point of view of the House, the hon. Gentleman has not been here throughout the debate and he did not hear the support put forward for a 100-Member Assembly which was based only on a bold statement that the Royal Commission had recommended a 100-Member Assembly. All I am doing, for the benefit of the House, is bringing out the additional view of the Royal Commission that such a size of Assembly would be based on the STV system. That is entirely different from pretending to the House that a 100-Member Assembly was based on the first-past-the-post system. That is not the case.

Mr. Brittan: I may have been absent from the Chamber for a short period, but the hon. Gentleman was present when I asked the question and he has not answered it. Why does a different method of election have any effect on the best size of the Assembly?

Mr. Ewing: I have already answered the question. I will go through the answer again. The case for having a 100-Member Assembly was simply that the Royal Commission had said that we should have it. But, reading the Royal Commission's report, one finds that it actually said that a 100-Member Assembly would be based on the STV system and that there would be a number of constituencies grouped in such a way as to produce 100 Members. That is all I am saying. That may or may not make any difference to the system

of election, but it certainly makes a difference to an argument about whether we should have 100 or 150 Members in the Assembly.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: We seem to be at cross purposes. The Royal Commission said two things—what the size of the Assembly should be and how it should be elected. If we are trying to say that the recommendation as to the size of the Assembly ought not to be followed because a different method of election is here being proposed, or that the recommendation as to the size of the Assembly is weakened because here is a different method of election, some relationship must be established between the recommendation as to the size and the recommendation as to the method of election. If the method of election does not have, or ought not to have, any impact on size, the recommendation as to size is just as valid even though the method of election is different.

Mr. Ewing: The Royal Commission said three things, not two. It said also that an alternative size of the Assembly should be considered. The debate is about what size the Assembly should be. Having made that point clear—

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has tried to base his argument on what the Royal Commission said. I refer him to what it said. In paragraph 791, it said:
Scotland, for example, now has 71 Members of Parliament. If this number were to be unchanged, and if for the purposes of election to a Scottish assembly the existing constituencies were to be combined in pairs, each new constituency so formed returning four members, the assembly would have a total of 142 members. If this number were considered to be too large …
It went on to consider that the Assembly might have a total of 100 or 120 Members. Having considered an Assembly of 142 Members—close to the figure that the Government propose—the Royal Commission came down to 100. It concluded that 142 would be far too large. Yet the Government want the membership to be eight more than that.

Mr. Ewing: It is an astonishing argument that the fact that a proposal in the Royal Commission's report was based on the STV system should be disregarded because it seems to meet the convenience


of certain hon. Members—although not the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, who did not make much of the point. But the Royal Commission made a good deal of it, and it is astonishing that we should be asked to disregard its argument now. For the benefit of the House, and in fairness to the Royal Commission, it is important that we should get on the record exactly what it said. Its proposal for a 100-Member Assembly was, whether the hon. Member for Pent-lands likes it or not, directly related to proportional representation and to the grouping of constituencies. That is the position.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns proposes that the Boundary Commission should be instructed to make a report to the Secretary of State within one year of the first elections. It is, frankly, not possible for the Boundary Commission within one year after the Assembly elections to draw up 100 Assembly constituencies, and to make all the allowances and arrangements for public objections, consultations and the rest which always go with the redrawing of boundaries, whether they be at regional level, district council level, parliamentary level or Assembly level. It could not be done.
Secondly, having an Assembly based on 100 constituencies would be, for the first time, a departure from the normal procedure in the United Kingdom of relating our electoral areas at both local and national level to parliamentary boundaries. Our district and regional council electoral areas, which are at present the subject of a Boundary Commission exercise, are related to parliamentary boundaries. The Boundary Commission in Scotland has just announced that it is now beginning the task of redrawing parliamentary boundaries there.
Frankly, therefore, from the practical point of view, if we sought to impose yet another burden on the Boundary Commission by requiring it to report back to the Secretary of State within a year, we should be giving it an impossible task. It just could not be done. Even if it were done, the 100 Assembly constituencies would not be related to the parliamentary boundaries of the existing 71 Scottish constituencies.
This has certain implications, and I do not speak now simply for the Labour

Party. I am sure that all parties are organised on a constituency basis. Certainly the Labour Party is organised on a constituency, regional and district party basis. I suspect that all the political parties in Scotland are organised in the same way and that the principal organisation is related to the constituency unit.
It would present impossible problems for the party machines to set up two separate organisations, one related to the structure of parliamentary constituencies, and to districts and regions within those parliamentary constituencies, and the other related entirely to Assembly constituencies. For that reason again, I hope that I shall be able to persuade the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns not to press the matter to a Division.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), in an intervention, suggested that there was a possibility that at some time in the future the number of Members coming to this House from Scottish constituencies might be reduced. If that were to happen—I do not pronounce on it at the moment because it is not part of our debate—it would automatically of itself reduce the size of the Assembly. There are no ifs, buts or doubts about it at all. Given the decision to have the parliamentary constituency as the basis for election to the Assembly, if the number of parliamentary constituencies were to be reduced it would automatically reduce the size of the Assembly. I hope that that is clearly understood.
The hon. Member for Pentlands also said that the Government had not sought to justify the increase from the original number of 138 to—[Interruption.] Kilbrandon is not the Government, I am delighted to say, and I do not speak for Kilbrandon. The hon. Member for Pentlands was implying that the Government had not sought to justify the figure of 150 which has been so widely talked of during the debate.

Mr. Rifkind: I am not trying to question the Government's justification for increasing the number from 138 to 150. My point is that the Government have never sought to justify increasing the figure from 138 to 150, given the disparity with the Kilbrandon recommendation. The Government have produced no evidence in favour of an Assembly of that size.

Mr. Ewing: I accept that correction and am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Member. Right from the beginning, however, the Government have been of the view that certainly the first elections ought to be on the basis of two Members per parliamentary constituency. In the original White Paper we had a formula which said that if a constituency had 25 per cent. more electors than the norm it would get an additional Member, and that any constituency, which was 25 per cent. below the norm would get only one Member. That was the formula which produced the figure of 138 Members. That formula of itself brought a great many objections. People objected to the suggestion that some constituencies would have only one Member whereas certain other constituencies, because of their size, would have three Members.
I take the mind of the House back to the November 1975 White Paper and the objections made to it, and to the commitment given by the Government that we would heed those objections and, as far as lay within our ability, try to correct all of them. The figure of 150 is a correction which takes into account the objections that were made to us about this aspect of the elections to the Assembly, by which some constituencies would have only one Member. On the basis of our decision that a constituency with 25 per cent. of electors above the norm should have three Members, that constituencies at or below the norm should have two Members, and that these should be one Member for Orkney and one for Shetland, we arrived at the figure we now have.
I think that I have said sufficient from the point of view of the party machine, which is based on parliamentary constituencies. I have also said sufficient from the point of view that the new clause does not deal with the first elections. With great respect, that was where the hon. Member for Fife, East was under a misunderstanding. The new clause does not deal with the first elections. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns is quite content with the system that the House has approved for the first elections, and his new clause deals with what happens after the first elections.
I must tell the House that it simply is not on to say to the Boundary Commission that it must draw up 100 Assembly

constituencies, allow for all the public inquiries and consultations concerning the drawing of electoral boundaries, and report to the Secretary of State within 12 months of the first elections. It is not only not on from that point of view. In my opinion, it would also be highly dangerous from the point of view of the political party machine. Finally, it would certainly be a departure from the system used in this country right down through the years in regard to electoral areas. Some of my hon. Friends mentioned community councils. Even a community council which casts only one vote is still related to a parliamentary constituency.
To do what is proposed would involve a departure requiring a great deal more thought than it is possible to give to the new clause. I hope that, having said that, I have persuaded the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns not to press the new clause to a Division.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The Minister may feel that he has said sufficient, but once again the Government have failed to justify an important measure contained in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) referred to the Kilbrandon Commission, as the Minister did, in considering the number of Members most appropriate for the Assembly. I think that the Minister has forgotten that the Royal Commission spent much more time in considering this aspect of devolution and all the other matters than the House of Commons was able to spend during the Committee stage. For that reason alone, the Minister might have taken the contents of the Kilbrandon Commission's report more seriously and studied it more carefully before replying to the debate.
It is quite clear that the Royal Commission looked at the number of Assemblymen from all angles and came to the view—quite rightly, in our opinion—that the right figure would be about 100. That is the figure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns is recommending in the clause, and it is a figure with which we agree entirely.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Why is it Holy Writ when Kilbrandon says that there


should be 100 Members but completely to be rejected when he says that we should have electoral reform?

Mr. Fletcher: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is addressing his remark to the right person. If he cares to look at the Official Report, he will find that I support proportional representation for the Assembly. I am happy to speak for myself on these matters. On the Conservative Benches we had a free vote. The hon. Gentleman is confusing, as the Minister confused, the voting system with the number of Members. Our reference to Kilbrandon, in trying to assess the number of Members that there should be in the Assembly, is confined at this moment to the relevance of 100 Members, as recommended by Kilbrandon, as the correct size for the Assembly. It has nothing at all to do with proportional representation, but the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) can never resist the urge to bring it into any part of the debate.
6.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) made a number of important points in his excellent speech. He mentioned the accommodation at the Royal High School and the fact that it would be stretched even if there were only 100 members, let alone facilities for 150 members.
The Minister will be aware that the only part of the accommodation which has been agreed with its new occupants is the Press accommodation. The Press has for some time been in committee considering what its dining, drinking and reporting facilities should be like. On this one occasion the Press might at least agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself that there is just no room for any more than 100 Members if the Press is to enjoy itself in its much-looked-forward-to Scottish Assembly.
The question which the Minister has persistently failed to answer is how the Government arrive at a figure of 150 Members.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I explained that.

Mr. Fletcher: The Minister did not explain it at all.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I explained to the House that we had arrived at the figure

of about 150 on the basis of two Members per constituency, plus an additional one for constituencies which are 25 per cent. above the norm, giving some constituencies three Members. But we have not taken away one Member from constituencies that are 25 per cent. below the norm, and we have given one Member each to Orkney and Shetland. That is how we arrive at the figure.

Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful to the Minister for again explaining that he did not explain how the Government arrived at the figure of 150, because—as has been pointed out time and time again—it certainly was not arrived at on the basis of the work load. Every argument about the work load shows that a figure of 150 Members is far too high. The figure was not arrived at on the basis of that factor, because we can manage happily with the Scottish electorate being represented at Westminster by 71 hon. Members who have a bigger work burden than Assemblymen will have, at least initially.
Nor was the figure arrived at, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands pointed out, on the basis of the number of Ministers that is needed. On any assessment of the number of Scottish Secretaries and assistant Scottish Secretaries who might be employed by the Executive in Edinburgh, a figure of about 20 would seem to be about correct. It would have been helpful if for once the Government had explained how they arrived at an important conclusion in presenting the Bill.
Apart from any other consideration, the international comparisons were extremely relevant. These were quoted at great length, and there is no need for me to repeat them now. The international comparisons with federal systems, and, indeed, with smaller independent States roughly the equivalent size of Scotland, prove the point more than anything else. Yet the Government completely ignore that point of view.
The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) made an important contribution to the debate, for two reasons. First, he spoke with first-hand knowledge of Scotland and of the political situation in Scotland. Second, he is able to look at the Bill and its proposals with a reasonably objective and detached view. I would have thought that his own colleagues might have made great use of


his advice and experience, which indicates that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is in no way too passionate in his criticism of the Bill. I do not think that the Government Front Bench would for one moment think that of the hon. Member for West Lothian.
The hon. Member for Oldham, East was right to express the fear which everyone in Scotland feels strongly, that of over-government. It was a factor which was again dismissed out of hand by the Minister in his reply. From the Minister's point of view, there are no problems of over-government. But there are problems of over-government in Britain and Scotland today. These problems will become very much greater and worse if the Government's proposal for 150 Members is introduced.
Surely this House has a clear duty not to smother or suffocate Scotland by imposing layer upon layer of government. Surely we must consider that the proportion of politicians to voters in Scotland would be the highest in the world. It is not a matter of one man, one vote. We are approaching a situation in Scotland where it would be one vote, one politician. That would not give the people of Scotland very much to look forward to.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: When I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Pentlands I got the impression that he was concerned about not having enough people in the Scottish Parliament to whip. He said that he could not accept 71 Members because there would be too many Ministers, too many Whips and not enough people left to whip. Perhaps the Government are suggesting a figure of 150 Members because they will have rather more Whips and feel that they need more people to whip.

Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who certainly emphasises the bureaucratic love of the Labour Party. But, in fact, "the hon. Member for North Angus and Pentlands" is my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), because it was he who played the numbers game in a way which was extremely interesting, if complicated. The fact remains that the business of government in Scotland is rightly proclaimed to

be the only growth industry that exists in the country since the present Government took over.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) both argued a logical and commonsense case for starting small with 71 Members and, if necessary, enlarging the size of the Assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) was also right to say that our terms of reference at Westminster did not require us to consider the views of candidates for the Assembly and whether they might be disappointed if some further constitutional change took place. But the Minister again rejected the argument that the Assembly might start small and enlarge if necessary, without giving any reason.
It cannot be that the Assembly has to be set up in such a tremendous rush that we cannot give the Boundary Commission a proper amount of time to do its job properly. That seems to be the only defence which the Minister offered. There is no case, therefore, for the number of Assemblymen which has been put forward and is contained in the Bill.
The Minister said with some finality "That is it." It may be that when this part of the Bill is debated in another place it will look at the paucity of the arguments put forward by the Minister and decide that some amendments are necessary.
At this stage, one cannot tell whether that will happen. What we can do this afternoon, and what we will do, is to vote for the new clause in order to reduce the number of Members now. I sincerely hope that it wil be passed.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can reply to the debate. I intend to be brief.
This debate, perhaps more than any other, has been disappointing. I believe that the Minister based his reply on utterly bogus arguments. He said that the size of the Assembly advocated by Kilbrandon—around 100—was directly related to the method of election. That might be the case if one reads the summary of Kilbrandon's conclusions.
I think that the Minister has misled the House. I refer him to paragraph 789 of


the Kilbrandon Commission Report dealing with the size of the Assembly. The first two sentences say:
The Northern Ireland House of Commons had 52 members. This number was acknowledged to be too small.
Later, the paragraph says:
On the other hand a regional assembly very much larger than this would be unwieldy. The precise number of members needed would depend on the extent of the devolved functions, the geographical area covered and the method of working, but we think that something of the order of a hundred would be about right.
There is no reference there to the method of election. If the Minister based his argument on that, it makes the rest of the argument bogus.
I recognise that the main practical disadvantage is that between the first and second elections there could be a reduction in the number of Members. However, I put the point that there could easily be an adjustment in the number of Scottish Members in the House of Commons, leading to an adjustment in constituencies. The situation is not fixed after the first election.
I hope that tonight's debate has shown that there is a desire among the Scottish people that the Assembly should be smaller for reasons of better working. Between now and the Bill's stages in another place the Government may come to realise that for the first election an Assembly of another size may be more appropriate.

The Minister's arguments were based on a bogus interpretation of the Kilbrandon Commission. They were based on grounds of practical convenience to the Boundary Commission and to political parties.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The hon. Member's interpretation does not tie in with mine. I did not accuse him of being bogus and unfair, and if he wants to swop insults I will do so and he will come off worse.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Really, the Minister is playing Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and I do not want to join in that. I deal with arguments on their merits. I do not argue against him just because he argues against me. That is not the way a proper debating chamber should work.
The Minister based his arguments on matters of convenience, and that argument is completely unworthy of the importance of the issue tonight. We are dealing with the constitution, not matters of practical convenience. I am dealing with the future success of the Scottish Assembly and the respect that it will command in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I believe that a smaller Assembly is more likely to be successful and to command respect, and for these reasons I hope that the House will support me.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 276.

Division No. 112]
AYES
[6.43 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Alison, Michael
Bryan, Sir paut
Dunlop, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Buck, Antony
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Tom
Budgen, Nick
Dykes, Hugh


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bulmer, Esmond
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Emery, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Carlisle, Mark
Eyre, Reginald


Baker, Kenneth
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Banks, Robert
Channon, Paul
Fairgrieve, Russell


Bell, Ronald
Churchill, W. S.
Farr, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Benyon, W.
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Biffen, John
Clegg, Walter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Biggs-Davison, John
Cockroft, John
Forman, Nigel


Blaker, Peter
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fox, Marcus


Body, Richard
Cope, John
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Costain, A. P.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Gardmer, Edward (S. Fylde)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Critchley, Julian
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Crowder, F. P.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Brittan, Leon
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Goodhart, Philip


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Goodhew, Victor


Brooke, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Goodlad, Alastair


Brotherton, Michael
Drayson, Burnaby
Gorst, John




Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mackay, Andrew (Stechford)
Rhodes James, R.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Ridsdale, Julian


Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Grieve, Percy
Madel, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Griffiths, Eldon
Marshall, Michael, (Arundel)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Grist, Ian
Marten, Neil
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mates, Michael
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mather, Carol
Sainsbury, Tim


Hannam, John
Maude, Angus
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Scott, Nicholas


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Haselhurst, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shepherd, Colin


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mayhew, Patrick
Shersby, Michael


Hayhoe, Barney
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sillars, James


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Silvester, Fred


Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Peter
Sims, Roger


Hicks, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman
Sinclair, Sir George


Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hodgson, Robin
Moate, Roger
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Holland, Philip
Molyneaux, James
Speed, Keith


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Monro, Hector
Spence, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Montgomery, Fergus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Sproat, Iain


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Stainton, Keith


Hurd, Douglas
Morgan, Geraint
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stanley, John


James, David
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Stokes, John


Jessel, Toby
Mudd, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Neave, Airey
Tapsell, Peter


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Neubert, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Newton, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Nott, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Onslow, Carnley
Townsend, Cyril D.


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Knight, Mrs Jill
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Vanghan, Dr Gerard


Knox, David
Page, Richard (Workington)
Viggers, Peter


Lamont, Norman
Paisley, Rev Ian
Wakeham, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Parkinson, Cecil
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Lawrence, Ivan
Percival, Ian
Warren, Kenneth


Lawson, Nigel
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Weatherill, Bernard


Le Merchant, Spencer
Pink, R. Bonner,
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wiggin, Jerry


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Winterton, Nicholas


Lloyd, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Loveridge, John
Prior, Rt Hon James
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Action)


Luce, Richard
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Younger, Hon George


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rathbone, Tim



McCusker, H.
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
TELLERS, FOR THE AYES:


Macfarlane, Neil
Rees, Peter (Dover, &amp; Deal)
Mr. Alick Bunchanan-Smith and


MacGregor, John
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Mr. Malcolm Rifkind




NOES


Abse, Leo
Bunchanan, Richard
Davis, Clinton (Hanckney C)


Allaun, Frank
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Deakins, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ian
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Armstrong, Ernest
Canavan, Dennis
Dempsey, James


Ashley, Jack
Cant, R. B.
Doig, Peter


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Carmichael, Neil
Dormand, J. D.


Atkinson, Norman
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cartwright, John
Dunn, James A.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Clemitson, Ivor
Dunnett, Jack


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cock, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Eadie, Alex


Bates, Alf
Cohen, Stanley
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bean, R. E.
Coleman, Donald
English, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmathen)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Crawford, Douglas
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Boardman, H.
Crawshaw, Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cryer, Bob
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Flannery, Martin


Bradley, Tom
Dalyell, Tam
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davidson, Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Forrester, John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Ifor, (Gower)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'W'd)







Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McCartney, Hugh
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Freud, Clement
MacCormick, Iain
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McElhone, Frank
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


George, Bruce
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Gilbert, Dr John
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Gould, Bryan
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Snape, Peter


Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


Graham, Ted
Madden, Max
Spriggs, Leslie


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Magee, Bryan
Stallard, A. W.


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Steel, Rt Hon David


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donal


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hardy, Peter
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stoddart, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Maynard, Miss Joan
Stott, Roger


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Meacher, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mikardo, Ian
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hooson, Emlyn
Mitchell, Austin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Horam, John
Moonman, Eric
Thomas, Ron (Briston NW)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thompson, George


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Huckfield, Les
Moyle, Roland
Tierney, Sydney


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Tinn, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tomlinson, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noble, Mike
Tuck, Raphael


Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Orbach, Maurice
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ovenden, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Janner, Greville
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Ward, Michael


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Padley, walter
Watkins, David


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Palmer, Arthur
Watkinson, John


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pardoe, John
Watt, Hamish


John, Brynmor
Park, George
Weetch, Ken


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Parker, John
Weitzman, David


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Parry, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pendry, Tom
Welsh, Andrew


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Phenhaligon, David
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Phipps, Dr Colin
White, James (Pollok)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitehead, Phillip


Judd, Frank
Radice, Giles
Whitlock, William


Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Kelley, Richard
Richardson, Miss Jo
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lambie, David
Roberts, Gwilyn (Cannock)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Herford)


Lamborn, Harry
Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Sir Thomas (warrington)


Lamond, James
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgeers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wislon, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Lee, John
Rooker, J. W.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roper, John
Woodall, Alec


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rose, Paul B.
Woof, Robert


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of wight)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lipton, Marcus
Rowlands, Ted



Litterick, Tom
Sandelson, Neville
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. James Hamilton and


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Server, John
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 4

ELECTIONS TO ASSEMBLY

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 3, leave out "would be entitled" and insert—

'(i) have their names on such parts of the register of parliamentary electors as relate to the Assembly constituency; and
(ii) would be entitled.'


This amendment seeks to correct a possible anomaly which came to light as a result of discussion of the clause in Committee. In debate, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) pointed out that an elector appeared to be able to make a choice of two or three Assembly constituencies within the parliamentary constituency in which he lived, and he hinted that an elector could cast a vote in each.
In reply, I said that the intention was to fill in the detail with an order under


Clause 5(3)—now 4(3)—dealing with the conduct of elections. It is quite clear that an order under Clause 4(3) can prevent people voting more than once in an election by attracting Section 48 of the Representation of the People Act 1949, which makes it an offence for someone to vote more than once in the same constituency or in more than one constituency.
However, after further consideration, the Government accept that there is room for doubt as to the power to provide by order under Clause 4(3) that an elector shall vote only in the Assembly constituency in which he is registered as residing. We have therefore decided to take up the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Crosby and make specific provision to meet this point in Clause 4.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the Minister of State for taking up the proposal which I made in Committee. I am glad that the Leader of the House is present, because I can thank him too. His name is at the top of the amendment, he having taken over my proposed amendment.
The Minister of State knocked me about a little on the previous occasion when I had the temerity to suggest that there was one comma wrong in the draft of the Bill. I am grateful that he is now admitting a little error in the Bill and has put it right.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18

LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF ASSEMBLY

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 118, in page 8, line 10, at end insert:
'provided that, other than is enacted in Clause 19 hereof, an Act of the Assembly shall be deemed to be intra vires'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we may take Amendment No. 119, in page 71, line 21, leave out Schedule 12.

Mr. Wilson: The object of the amendment is to secure a review of the intention of the Bill to enable an examination of the vires of Assembly legislation after Royal Assent has been given to the legislation.
We have an interesting situation in the Bill as it stands. As a result of the Government's desire to create a subordinate Assembly in Scotland, that Assembly's powers are hedged about by a number of clauses that seek to prevent the Assembly from exceeding the powers given to it. It is interesting that, in the Government of Ireland Act, there were no such provisions for pre- or post-legislative review. A number of provisions in this Bill fence in the powers to be given to the Assembly.
If I were in a provocative mood, I could suggest that the intention of those provisions is to neuter the Assembly and prevent it doing the things that this House does not wish it to do. However, I do not want to get involved in that argument.
There are plenty of legislative safeguards—some would say too many—built into the Bill. Clause 17 and 18 and Schedule 2 set out areas in which the legislative competence of the Assembly is restricted. These are strictly drawn and there is little latitude for the Assembly to escape, even if it wished to do so. There is also the provision that the Bill will devolve specific powers to the Assembly. It does not propose that any form of sovereignty of power should be available to the Assembly. Sovereignty is reserved to Westminster. In Schedule 10 and Clauses 59 and 60, we have proposals that there should be a grouping of the powers available to the Assembly and that it should not be permitted to go outside the powers provided by the Bill.
Under pressure of all sorts, and probably true to their own inclinations, the Government have trimmed the Assembly to a specific range of powers and fenced it in by providing that where there is doubt about the competence or vires of legislation enacted by the Assembly, the Secretary of State may, before Royal Assent, rule that the measure is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly and ask the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for a decision on that matter. There is an exception, but that gives Ministers much stronger powers in relation to Community or international obligations of the United Kingdom.
The Judicial Committee will sit as a court to scrutinise Bills and decide whether they are within the vires of the Assembly. If they are not, they will be struck out. One might say that this is a concrete provision under which the House retains substantial powers, through the Secretary of State and judicial processes, over the actions of the Assembly. One could argue whether this is a good or a bad provision, but the House has approved the principle. We have had a debate on whether the judicial scrutiny should be extended to EEC or international obligations.
We now face the problem of what will happen after assent has been given to an Assembly Act, and here we enter a realm where there are differences of view among legal authorities in Scotland. The Law Society took the view, in its memorandum prepared for the ill-fated Scotland and Wales Bill—and that view still holds good—that Royal Assent would not protect an Act of the Scottish Assembly from challenge in the courts after it had reached the statute book. The Law Society said that this was the effect of the clause providing that an Act shall be law only if, or to the extent that, it is within the legislative competence of the Assembly. It accepts that Assembly Acts will be open to challenge as they will be subordinate legislation.
If the House accepts post-Assent review as necessary, many practical difficulties could be caused. It is interesting that these difficulties are pointed out by the Council of the Law Society. It is worth quoting the memorandum, which says:
The Council in its original and in its Supplementary Memorandum drew attention to the problems that would arise if legislation of the Scottish Assembly were open to challenge in the Courts after reaching the Statute Book. The occasion, or the opportunity for the challenge might not occur until years after the legislation was enacted. In the meantime a series of convictions, or agreements, or arrangements might have proceeded on the basis that the legislation was valid. Quite intractable problems could arise if the legislation were then declared invalid as to whether the convictions were to be pardoned, fines repaid, agreements reduced, arrangements dissolved. Amending legislation would be required, with retrospective effect. In the meantime the community would have to accept a situation of uncertainty as to whether the law was enforceable or not, a situation that would be particularly disturbing if it were quickly realised that an Act were of doubtful validity, but no occasion arose to challenge it. The Council therefore remains

of the view that post-assent review should be excluded, and that the Bill should be amended to declare that an Act of the Scottish Assembly shall, on receiving the Royal Assent, have all the force and finality of Parliamentary legislation, and not be open to challenge.
We know that parliamentary legislation can be open to challenge, in certain respects, by the courts. I am not seeking to disguise that fact, but when such legislation is looked at by the courts, it is not its fundamental essence which is attacked in relation to its vires because Parliament, with sovereignty behind it, does not have that problem. A challenge may arise because the drafting of the Act causes doubt or wrongful interpretation. That is when the courts can elaborate their views in relation to the Act. They cannot challenge the Act in relation to its own authority. In that respect, the Act cannot be attacked.
It could be argued that if there had been no judicial screening of Assembly legislation before assent, there would be a case for citizens having the right to attack the vires of the Act in the courts after the event, but it is for the Government, with all the advice of their legal experts, to seek to refer any Act of the Assembly to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The onus is on the Government to decide. With the wealth of experience and skill they have at their disposal, they can decide whether there is any doubt in relation to a Bill and, if there is, they can refer it to the Judicial Committee. Having done that, it would be the decision of the Privy Council to which weight would have to be given at the end of the day. The matter would be settled one way or another.
In fact, Parliament and the Government went out of their way to provide for this judicial scrutiny because they did not wish conflict to arise between the Scottish Assembly and Westminster. So it is in the Bill at present. But we have the peculiar situation in which the Government have in the Scotland Bill deliberately opened up the possibility of post-Assent review. I use the word "deliberately" because in the original Scotland and Wales Bill the procedures by which the Scottish Assembly legislation could be attacked were not enunciated. There may well have been room for an amendment in the Bill to provide that a Scottish Assembly Act of Parliament would have its own validity, but in the present Bill


the Government have, I think, in relation to Schedule 12, set out a very complicated mechanism whereby the judicial systems of the three judicial areas of the United Kingdom—Scotland, England and Wales and Northern Ireland—would have the opportunity to give weight, under certain conditions, to an attack on the Act of Parliament itself.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the absence of any express provision in the Scotland and Wales Bill carried the implication that post-Assent judicial review would be open to the citizen?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, I accept what the Lord Advocate says, because I made that point myself. I indicated that although the Scotland and Wales Bill was silent, there was, in my view, room for an amendment to put the matter beyond doubt. But in any case, in that Bill the Privy Council was not invested with the authority that it is now given. We have a very complicated arrangement, drawn up to provide for litigants to take matters to their respective courts, right up to the House of Lords, if necessary.
The question that I wish to ask—I do not make the point any length because it is almost a matter of judgment and is not a party political point or an anti-devolution or pro-devolution point—is whether the proposal for post-Assent review should be upheld and whether an amendment akin to my own should not be accepted in order to remove the doubt and uncertainty which the Law Society of Scotland says could occur if post-Assent review were maintained.
At this point I should put on record that the Faculty of Advocates takes an entirely different stance. In a letter from the Dean of Faculty addressed to the Lord President on 10th January, the Faculty of Advocates says that it
unreservedly welcomes this change. As has been pointed out in previous comments, the right to challenge an action of a subordinate authority which exceeds its legal power is a fundamental one.
It does not see any undue difficulty in advising clients or arranging legal affairs. We have a peculiar situation in which the two foremost legal bodies in Scotland in the judiciary take a different stance.
It may be that they look at it from different viewpoints. Solicitors—I was one before being elected to the House—are men of business as well as men of law. In other words, they handle a lot of practical business and come into contact with the general public in advisory work much more frequently than does an advocate. They resort to the advice of counsel on matters of exceptional complexity but do not necessarily make their livelihoods out of litigation. The Faculty of Advocates, on the other hand, is there to provide advice on matters of exceptional complexity and it is pre-eminent in the realm of litigation. Therefore, it may well be that the Faculty of Advocates does not see any difficulty. In fact, it may add to the work available to the faculty.
However, the people who are in direct contact with business interests or, indeed with people, namely the solicitors—members of the Law Society—say that they think that there will be difficulties. I suggest that the amendments which have been proposed ought to be accepted. It may be that the Lord Advocate will say that the terms of the amendment do not fit the Bill. I hope that his answer will not be couched in those terms. We had an argument on whether a comma was in the right place in the preceding amendment. The Lord Advocate is quite capable, as we all know—or the Government, through the Lord President—of framing the appropriate amendment and making sure that it is placed in the Bill at the House of Lords proceedings.
I should like to hear from the Government and other Members of Parliament whether they agree or disagree with the principle that has been enunciated. In particular, I hope that if they agree with what the Law Society of Scotland has said—they are experienced people dealing with ordinary affairs concerning individuals and companies—they will agree with the proposition and vote for the amendment tonight if the Lord Advocate cannot give an assurance today.

7.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I intervene briefly at this point as this is bound to be a short debate. I say firstly to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that I think that he inadvertently suggested that the Government of Ireland


Act did not provide for judicial review of the kind that is in the present Bill. I think that that is wrong. Section 51 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 says the following—and I read short:
If it appears to the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State expedient that steps be taken for the speedy determination of the question whether any Act … or any Bill introduced … is beyond the power of such Parliament … the Lord Lieutenant … may represent the same to His Majesty in Council, and thereupon, if His Majesty so directs, the said question shall be forthwith referred to and heard and determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
In addition to that, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East will be aware, being a practising solicitor, there was judicial review post Assent in the courts in Northern Ireland. Nobody has seriously suggested that either of those provisions presented any serious problems for the legal administration of Northern Ireland.
As the hon. Gentleman has clearly stated, the two amendments that he has put forward to strike out the machinery provisions for post-Assent judicial review would provide that the Scottish Assembly Bills should, if they receive the Royal Assent, not be able to be challenged in court. In other words, they should be regarded as intra vires, except as otherwise provided in the clause on which he hangs the amendments—namely, Clause 18. In those amendments the Scottish National Party is not challenging the concept, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, of pre-Assent scrutiny by the Judicial Committee. He hangs his argument on the fact that this is provided for in this Bill in contrast with the earlier Scotland and Wales Bill.
It appears, therefore, that the SNP does not agree with the Government—this is an important point of principle—that the ordinary citizen in Scotland who is prejudiced by abuse of power by the Assembly or its Executive should have recourse to the Scottish courts for a remedy.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does not the Lord Advocate accept that what we are attempting to do is to place an ordinary citizen in the same position in relation to the Scottish Assembly as he is in at present in relation to Westminster and the vires within which Westminster works?

The Lord Advocate: I do, but I will come to that point later. I have to say

that the amendment proposed to Clause 18, as worded, is unsatisfactory but the intention is clear. The amendments as a whole are defective in that no provision is made for Clause 61. The hon. Gentleman will see the point if he looks at Clause 61.
Before turning to the main thrust of the argument that the hon. Gentleman put, may I say that there was a full discussion—unfortunately the hon. Gentleman did not attend it—of the machinery provisions in Schedule 12 which touched upon this whole issue during the Committee stage. It will be found in Hansard for 18th January 1978 at column 578. At that stage, no voice was raised against the principle of post-Assent judicial review. The official Opposition made it clear that they supported the principle, as did the Liberal Party. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) was very strong and vehement about that. At the end of the debate, with complete honour, the amendment was withdrawn.
However, it is right to say that many of the points that the hon. Gentleman has touched upon could have been dealt with in that debate. At least some of them were touched upon.
The hon. Gentleman founded his argument strongly on the representations made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland. I simply point out that there are two views on this matter. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was very fair in saying that there is a difference of view between the two Scottish legal bodies.
It is easy to exaggerate the difficulties which can arise from post-Assent review. In a situation where there is a balance of convenience and expediency, those considerations being evenly balanced between each side, I think it far better at the end of the day to proceed on principle rather than on such a matter of balance, and I shall present the argument on principle.

Mr. Dalyell: The question of rectifying damage has been raised. I quote from a letter from the Law Society of Scotland of 8th February, signed by Kenneth Pritchard and written in the knowledge that both the President and Dr. Macmillan had presented a memorandum concerning problems which could arise in rectifying any damage that has been done as a result of any legislation


of the Assembly which has been reviewed in the courts. Mr. Pritchard writes:
Are there to be procedures in the event of some additional condition being imposed to have the endorsement or whatever taken off a driver's licence?
That is a practical problem.
Is there to be some form of compensation if a driver has in fact, as a result of some procedure, been disqualified when he ought not to have been? Is there to be some form of compensation in respect of legislation affecting some aspect of commercial transactions if such legislation proves to be ultra vires and as a result businesses have suffered loss?
That is the kind of practical problem which we face.

The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend is exactly repeating a point which was raised in the earlier debate. As this must be a short debate, I simply refer him to what was said then. I shall now return to the point which I was making in response to the case presented by the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
The arguments on both sides of this question were fully set out in the White Paper of November 1975, paragraphs 62 to 65. The whole object there was to get a response, and there was a response. The Government took account of that response, and as a result the Bill is before the House in its present form.
It seems to me that the crucial point—this is the point of principle to which I referred—is that the Scottish Assembly will be a subordinate legislature to which has been devolved power to make laws in certain prescribed areas, but not sovereignty. During some of the debates in the House, there have been hints that sovereignty is in some way being divided by the Bill. That is not so. In law, sovereignty is not being divided. Sovereignty remains exclusively with Parliament, based firmly on the Union of 1707. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East knows, there are some judicial dicta in Scotland to the effect that even this House may not be sovereign enough to disturb the Union of 1707.
It is considered by the Government to be a sound principle that, where there is a subordinate legislature, the citizen who can show title and interest to sue should have the right to challenge on vires grounds any excess or abuse of power by the Scottish Assembly or by its Executive

for some injustice which may result to him.
That is the point of principle on which the Government stand. I regard it as a correct principle. The hon. Gentleman has fairly put the argument on the other side, but I hope that the House will support the Government in this matter.
Incidentally, where there is some sharing of legislative authority within a State, the general rule—indeed, I suspect perhaps the universal rule—is that the legislative authority conferred is limited and there is provision for recourse to the courts—the domestic courts of the country concerned—where there is dispute about whether those limits have been overstepped.
For those reasons, I hope that the House will not accept the amendment.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Lord Advocate has given an authoritative answer, as he always does on these questions, since he knows far more about them than the average Member does, but I think that we should look at the matter in slightly different terms. In our earlier debate there was a temptation to talk in legal terms without proper thought for some of the practical consequences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) made clear on the earlier occasion that we accept the principle of a subordinate legislature and we accept that in these circumstances the citizen should have the right to challenge the law. I affirm that again, but, in fairness to those who have written to us—the Law Society of Scotland and individual lawyers—we are entitled to consider the practical consequences of adopting this relatively new course.
I shall put an example to the Lord Advocate and ask him to explain how matters would work. According to Clause 18 as drafted, we get our guidance on vires from Schedule 2, and, presumably, as regards scrutiny of a Bill under Clause 19, we again get our guidance from Schedule 2. I turn then to paragraph 4 of that schedule, which sets out the legislative competence of the Assembly. For example, it does not have the right to tax. However, in sub-paragraph (2) it is provided that the Assembly may make certain changes in local taxation. For example, it could
alter a rate levied without substantially changing its character.


I come now to a specific example. At present, industry in Scotland is derated by 50 per cent., whereas normal rates apply to everyone else. It is possible that a Scottish Assembly could take the view, as time went on—we have today seen in the papers great complaint that revaluation has meant that industry is carrying a higher burden and domestic ratepayers rather less—that industrial derating should be abolished or, probably more likely, that, instead of 50 per cent., industrial derating should be 55 per cent., 45 per cent. or 60 per cent. In other words, that would be a minor change in a local tax.
However, such minor changes may have devastating cash consequences for some industrial firms. Let us assume that such a measure was passed by the Assembly. It was considered by the Secretary of State that it was within the Assembly's competence under Schedule 2, but at a later stage the courts take the view that, despite the Secretary of State's opinion that it was all right, in fact that measure chanced the character of a rate or local tax.
There may be some point at which such a marginal question would arise. Let us assume that an aggrieved employer—for example, Lewis in Argyll Street, the Chrysler Corporation or the British Steel Corporation, although they are in a rather different category—took the view that that action of the Scottish Assembly was ultra vires. If the aggrieved person or company goes to court and wins the point, what is the consequence for local authorities? Presumably they will have to repay substantial sums, and domestic ratepayers would somehow have to pick up the tab.
Under the system of post-Assent review, there could well be a situation which created serious cash consequences, so we are not just talking about someone disqualified from driving or the like. It could be an extremely serious matter. Where there are substantial cash consequences of that kind, what happens? Who pays? Who is responsible?
I have referred to local authorities, but the same could apply to a private individual or a firm. Although the Opposition fully support the principle in this matter outlined by the Government, the House should realise that we are entering a new ball game, and until we see

what the courts will determine we do not know the consequences.
I think that it would reassure the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and others—admittedly, there are conflicting views within the legal profession—if we knew that the Government had given some thought to the implications of what could be a serious state of affairs.
I hope that the example which I have put to the Lord Advocate is a good one. I ask him to give some indication of what he sees as the consequences, although I say again that on the principle of the matter we are agreed.

Mr. Dalyell: What is a non-lawyer to do in these circumstances? Here is the most authoritative legal body in Scotland saying on 8th February:
The problems unfortunately seem to us to be endless and there does not seem to be any form of solution proposed.
That letter is signed by Kenneth Pritchard, not only in his own behalf but on behalf of Dr. Macmillan and Mr. Hamilton.
I think it extraordinary that at this stage we should have such doubt on everyday matters of compensation. I gave the example of the driver and his licence, but there are many others. The Law Society of Scotland says:
they are most concerned with post-Assent review and they have expressed themselves in terms of great concern"—
and have asked for an opportunity to meet Ministers—
to explain precisely why we believe that post-Assent review is wrong.
I shall sit down with this question. Has that meeting taken place, and what is to be done about it?

The Lord Advocate: Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I say a word? There is very little time, and perhaps an intervention at this point would help. I take his point and the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). In my view, it is impossible in the time available to do justice to those two points. Accordingly, what I propose to do is to write to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Gentleman giving them the reply which I cannot give tonight.
Perhaps I should say to the hon. Member for Cathcart that I can give him a partial reassurance. At least, I hope that


it is some reassurance. In fact, much the same problem—

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that I must interrupt to move "That the Question be now put" before the guillotine comes down.

Mr. Speaker: I shall be putting the Question in any case in a moment or two.

The Lord Advocate: I can tell the hon. Member for Cathcart that much the same problem as he put to me could already arise because actions of local authorities involving vast amounts of

public expenditure can at present be found to be ultra vires by the courts.

As a consequence of this provision of the Bill, there is an element of novelty here, but the novelty is not quite as great as the hon. Member for Cathcart thinks. The question is not an easy—

It being half-past Seven o'clock. Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution yesterday, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 462.

Division No.113]
AYES
[7.30 p.m.


Crawford, Douglas
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)



Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Watt, Hamish
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Welsh, Andrew
Miss Margaret Bain and


Henderson, Douglas
Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. George Thompson.


MacCormick, Iain






NOES


Abse, Leo
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Alison, Michael
Bryan, Sir paul
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)


Allaun, Frank
Buchan, Norman
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Anderson, Donald
Buchanan, Richard
Deakins, Eric


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dean, Josesph (Leeds West)


Armstrong, Ernest
Buck, Antony
Dempsey, James


Arnold, Tom
Budgen, Nick
Dodswoth Geoffrey


Ashley, Jack
Bulmer, Esmond
Doig, Peter


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dormand, J. D.


Atkinson, Norman
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Awdry, Daniel
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Baker, Kenneth
Campbell, Ian
Drayson, Burnaby


Banks, Robert
Canavan, Dennis
du Cann, Rt. Hon Edward


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cant, R. B.
Dunn, James A.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Carlisle, Mark
Dunnett, Jack


Bates, Alf
Carmichael, Neil
Durant, Tony


Bean, R. E.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dykes, Hugh


Beith, A. J.
Cartwright, John
Eadie, Alex


Bell, Ronald
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Channon, paul
Emery, Peter


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
English, Michael


Benyon, W.
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Biffen, John
Clegg, Walter
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Biggs-Davison, John
Clemitson, lvor
Eyre, Reginald


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Cockroft, John
Fairbarin, Nicholas


Blaker, Peter
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cohen, Stanley
Farr, John


Boardman, H.
Coleman, Donald
Faulds, Andrew


Body, Richard
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, John
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Costain, A. P.
Flannery, Martin


Bottomley, Peter
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Critchley, Julian
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Crowder F. P.
Forman, Nigel


Bradley, Tom
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Forrester, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Cryer, Bob
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Fox, Marcus


Brittan, Leon
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Brooke, Peter
Dalyell, Tam
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brotherton, Michael
Davidson, Arthur
Freud, Clement


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Fry, Peter


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.




Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Kimball, Marcus
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Neave, Airey


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Nelson, Anthony


George, Bruce
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Neubert, Michael


Gilbert, Dr John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Newton, Tony


Ginsburg, David
Lambie, David
Noble, Mike


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lamborn, Harry
Nott, John


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Lamond, James
Oakes, Gordon


Golding, John
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Ogden, Eric


Goodhart, Philip
Latham, Michael (Melton)
O'Halloran, Michael


Goodhew, Victor
Lawrence, Ivan
Onslow, Cranley


Goodlad, Alastair
Lawson, Nigel
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Gould, Bryan
Lee, John
Orbach, Maurice


Gourlay, Harry
Le Marchant, Spencer
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ovenden, John


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Graham, Ted
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Padley, Walter


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Page, Rt Hon H. Graham (Crosby)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gray, Hamish
Lipton, Marcus
Palmer, Arthur


Grieve, Percy
Litterick, Tom
Park, George


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Lloyd, Ian
Parker, John


Grist, Ian
Loveridge, John
Parkinson, Cecil


Grocott, Bruce
Luce, Richard
Parry, Robert


Grylls, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Pendry, Tom


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Pennaligon, David


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Percival, Ian


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
McCartney, Hugh
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Hannam, John
McCrindle, Robert
Phipps, Dr Colin


Hardy, Peter
McCusker, H.
Pink, R. Bonner


Harper, Joseph
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
McElhone, Frank
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Price, William (Rugby)


Haselhurst, Alan
MacGregor, John
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hastings, Stephen
Mackay, Andrew (Stechford)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Radice, Giles


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Rathbone, Tim


Hayhoe, Barney
Maclennan, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Hicks, Robert
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rhodes James, R.


Hodgson, Robin
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Hooley, Frank
McNamara, Kevin
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Hooson, Emlyn
Madden, Max
Rifkind, Malcolm


Horam, John
Magee, Bryan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hordern, Peter
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Robinson, Geoffrey




Roderick, Caerwyn


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Marten, Neil
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Huckfield, Les
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mates, Michael
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mather, Carol
Roper, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Maude, Angus
Rose, Paul B.


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Mawby, Ray
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kllmarnock)


Hunter, Adam
Mayhew, Patrick
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Hurd, Douglas
Maynard, Miss Joan
Rost, peter (SE Derbyshire)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Meacher, Michael
Rowlands, Ted


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sainsbury, Tim


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Mendelson, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sandelson, Neville


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Sedgemore, Brian


Janner, Greville
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Sever, John


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Mills, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Miscampbell, Norman
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mitchell, Austin
Shepherd, Colin


Jessel, Toby
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shersby, Michael


John, Brynmor
Moate, Roger
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Monro, Hector
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Moonman, Eric
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Silverster, Fred


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Morgan, Geraint
Sims, Roger


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sinclair, Sir George


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, Charles R. (Opernshaw)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Morris, Rt Hon. J. (Aberavon)
Skinner, Dennis


Judd, Frank
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Kaufman, Gerald
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Snape, Peter


Kelley, Richard
Moyle, Roland
Spearing, Nigel


Kerr, Russell
Mudd, David
Speed, Keith


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Spence, John







Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Tinn, James
White, James (Pollok)


Spriggs, Leslie
Tomlinson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Sproat, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D.
Whitlock, William


Stallard, A. W.
Tuck, Raphael
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook, Ivor
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stanley, John
Viggers, Peter
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wakeham, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stoddart, David
Waider, David (Clitheroe)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Stott, Roger
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Winterton, Nicholas


Strang, Gavin
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Walters, Dennis
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Ward, Michael
Woodall, Alec


Tapsell, Peter
Warren, Kenneth
Woof, Robert


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Watkins, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watkinson, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Weatherill, Bernard
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Weetch, Ken
Younger, Hon George


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Weitzman, David



Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Welts, John
Mr. Tim Marshall and


Tierney, Sydney
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Mr. Thomas Cox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker: I am now required by the terms of the allocation of time order to put the question on any amendment moved by a member of the Government to that part of the Bill which is to be disposed of at this hour.
The Government amendments standing on the Amendment Paper to which this applies are Nos. 23, 55, 56 and 62 to 66.
I understand that a Division is wanted on Amendment No. 23.
Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the

disposal of the Business to be concluded at half-past Seven o'clock.

Clause 28

MEMBERS OF ASSEMBLY ACTING AS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONERS

Amendment No. 23 proposed: In page 13, line 16, at end insert—
'(5) Section 21 above shall not apply to the Act of 1936.'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 241.

Division No. 114]
AYES
[7.45 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Cartwright, John
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Anderson, Conald
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clemitson, Ivor
Flannery, Martin


Armstrong, Ernest
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Ashley, Jack
Cohen, Stanley
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Coleman, Donald
Forrester, John


Atkinson, Norman
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Crawford, Douglas
Freud, Clement


Bates, Alf
Crawshaw, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bean, R. E.
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
George, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Cryer, Bob
Gilbert, Dr John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Ginsburg, David


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dalyell, Tam
Golding, John


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Davidson, Arthur
Gould, Bryan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Gourlay, Harry


Boardman, H.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Grocott, Bruce


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Deakins, Eric
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hardy, Peter


Bradley, Tom
Dempsey, James
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Doig, Peter
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dormand, J. D.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dunn, James A.
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Buchan, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Henderson, Oouglas


Buchanan, Richard
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hooley, Frank


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
English, Michael
Hooson, Emlyn


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Horam, John


Campbell, Ian
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Cant, R. B.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Carmichael, Neil
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Huckfield, Les


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Faulds, Andrew
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)




Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hunter, Adam
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Mitchell, Austin
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Molloy, William
Stoddart, David


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Moonmen, Eric
Stott, Roger


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Strang, Gavin


Janner, Greville
Morris, Charies R. (Openshaw)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Moyle, Roland
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


John, Brynmor
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Noble, Mike
Thompson, George


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Oakes, Gordon
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ogden, Eric
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tierney, Sydney


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Orbach, Maurice
Tinn, James


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tomlinson, John


Judd, Frank
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Tuck, Raphael


Kaufman, Gerald
Padley, Walter
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Kelley, Richard
Palmer, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Kerr, Russell
Park, George
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Kilroy-Sitk, Robert
Parker, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lambie, David
Parry, Robert
Walker, Terry (kingswood)


Lamborn, Harry
Pendry, Tom
Ward, Michael


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Penhaligon, David
Watkins, David


Lee, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Watkinson, John


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Radice, Giles
Watt, Hamish


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Weetch, Ken


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Weitzman, David


Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wellbeloved, James


Litterick, Tom
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Welsh, Andrew


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Robinson, Geoffrey
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Roderick, Caerwyn
White, James (Pollok)


McCartney, Hugh
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Whitehead, Phillip


MacCormick, Iain
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Whitlock, William


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Roper, John
Wigley, Dafydd


McEihone, Frank
Rose, Paul B.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Mackintosh, John P.
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington


Maclennan, Robert
Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


McNamara, Kevin
Sever, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Madden, Max
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Woodall, Alec


Magee, Bryan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Woof, Robert


Mallaliou, J. P. W.
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sillars, James



Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Maynard, Miss Joan
Snaps, Peter
Mr. Ted Graham.


Meacher, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie





NOES


Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Emery, Peter


Alison, Michael
Buck, Antony
Eyre, Reginald


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Budgen, Nick
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Arnold, Tom
Bulmer, Esmond
Fairgrieve, Russell


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Farr, John


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Carlisle, Mark
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Awdry, Daniel
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Baker, Kenneth
Channon, Paul
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Banks, Robert
Churchill, W. S.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bell, Ronald
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Forman, Nigel


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fox, Marcus


Benyon, W.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clegg, Walter
Fry, Peter


Biffen, John
Cockroft, John
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Blaker, Peter
Cope, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Critchley, Julian
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottomley, Peter
Crowder, F. P.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Goodhew, Victor


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bradford, Rev Robert
Dodsworth Geoffrey
Gorst, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Brittan, Leon
Drayson, Burnaby
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brooke, Peter
Dunlop, John
Gray, Hamish


Brotherton, Michael
Durant, Tony
Grieve, Percy


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dykes, Hugh
Griffiths, Eldon


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Grist, Ian







Grylls, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marten, Neil
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mates, Michael
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Hannam, John
Mather, Carol
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maude, Angus
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Sainsbury, Tim


Haselhurst, Alan
Mawby, Ray
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Scott, Nicholas


Hayhoe, Barney
Mayhew, Patrick
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Colin


Hicks, Robert
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Shersby, Michael


Higgins, Terence L.
Mills, Peter
Silvester, Fred


Hodgson, Robin
Miscampbell, Norman
Sims, Roger


Holland, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hordern, Peter
Moate, Roger
Skeet, T. H. H.


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Molyneaux, James
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Monro, Hector
Speed, Keith


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Montgomery, Fergus
Spence, John


Hurd, Douglas
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sproat, Iain


James, David
Morgan, Geraint
Stainton, Keith


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jessel, Toby
Morrison, charles (Devizes)
Stanley, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Mudd, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Neave, Airey
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Nelson, Anthony
Stokes, John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Neubert, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Kimball, Marcus
Newton, Tony
Tapsell, Peter


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Nott, John
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Onslow, Carnley
Tebbit, Norman


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knight, Mrs Jill
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Knox, David
Page, Richard (Workington)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Lamont, Norman
Paisley, Rev Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Parkinson, Cecil
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Percival, Ian
Wakeham, John


Lawson, Nigel
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Pink, R. Bonner,
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Walters, Dennis


Lloyd, Ian
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Warren, Kenneth


Loveridge, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Weatherill, Bernard


Luce, Richard
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wells, John


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wiggin, Jerry


McCrindle, Robert
Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


McCusker, H.
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Macfarlane, Neil
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


MacGregor, John
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Younger, Hon George


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)



Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rhodes James, R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Riidley, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Spences Le Marchant and


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Peter Morrison.


Madel, David
Rifkind, Malcolm

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 63

RATE SUPPORT GRANTS

Amendment No. 55 made: in page 31, line 2, leave out from "year" to "fall" in line 3 and insert
'which, after the coming into force of this section.'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Clause 64

PUBLIC BODIES

Amendment No. 56 made: in line 31, line 37, after "imposing", insert
', or enabling the imposition of,'.—[Mr. John Smith]

Clause 77

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 62, in page 36, line 15, after "persons", insert
'(other than the Scottish Transport Group)'.

No. 63, in page 36, line 16, leave out "railway, light railway"

No. 64, in page 36, line 20, after "Office", insert ", the British Railways Board".

No. 65, in page 36, line 26, at end inset—
'"the Highlands and Islands" means the Western Isles, the Shetland Islands, the Orkney Islands, the Highland Region and, in the Strathclyde Region, the district of Argyll and Bute and the Island of Arran;'.

No. 66, in page 36, leave out line 32.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Clause 80

REFERENDUM

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move Amendment No. 69, in page 38, leave out lines 17 to 22 and insert—
'(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State having regard to the answers given in the referendum and all other circumstances that this Act should not be brought into effect he may lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council providing for its repeal.'

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 70, in page 38, leave out lines 17 to 22 and insert—
'(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State, having regard to the answers given in the referendum, that the provisions of this Act should not come into operation in accordance with section 79 of this Act, he may lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of this Act.'
No. 71, in page 38, line 17, leave out "40" and insert "33⅓".
No. 72, in page 38, line 17, leave out "40" and insert "60".
No. 73, in page 38, line 17, leave out "40 per cent." and insert "one in three".
No. 74, in page 38, line 18, leave out "entitled to vote" and insert "voting".
No. 75, in page 38, line 20, after "Act", insert
', or if less than 33⅓ per cent. of those persons entitled to vote have voted".

Mr. Canavan: The purpose of this amendment is to reject the 40 per cent. rule which was introduced into the Bill in Committee. My amendment would return the Bill to its original state. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that my amendment would still mean that the referendum would be consultative, in the sense that the Secretary of State, having regard to the turnout, the percentage of people voting a particular way, and so on, would be able to take into account those circumstances. If he wished he could table an order and put it before Parliament for it to decide whether the Bill should come into effect.
8.0 p.m.
The Bill as it stands is unworkable. Subsection (2) speaks of
less than 40 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum".

But 40 per cent. of what? The size of the electorate cannot be exactly defined: it varies from day to day.
It is perhaps appropriate that the matter should be discussed on this day of all days, because 15th February is the day the new electoral register for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom is published. That register is already out of date, because there are on it the names of some people who are not eligible to vote.
In a referendum the electorate would consist of all those whose names appeared on that register, provided they were over 18 and still alive. It is easy to define those who are 18 or over, because their birthdays are entered on the register. The returning officer can count the number of young people coming on to the register by a particular day, but the people who die are uncountable. Therefore, there is no accurate way of defining the size of the electorate. I gather that there is no communication from the registrar of births and deaths to the electoral registration officers in the various local authorities.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Subsection (2) as it stands gives the Secretary of State a discretion to decide the number entitled to vote. It does not say "the number on the electoral register"; it says "entitled to vote". The Secretary of State could well determine—my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and I have tabled an amendment which spells this out—that the number entitled to vote if the referendum were held in October would be only 90 per cent. of the number on the electoral register.

Mr. Canavan: That will be a matter for the courts to interpret if the Bill goes through as it stands. There are doubts in the minds of my hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) about this point. Otherwise, they would not have tabled Amendment No. 77, which is an attempt to tidy up what is in fact an illogicality, a numerical imperfection in the Bill.
Moreover, some people's names appear on the register more than once, if they are domiciled in various places. For


example, I could possibly qualify to vote in the Westminster constituency if I wished, because of my domicile here, although, because my main domicile is in my constituency, I shall be voting for myself at the next General Election, and I shall also cast my referendum vote in West Stirlingshire.

Dr. Colin Phipps: That was the position in the European referendum. I was registered where my house is and also in London, because I have a flat here, but I was able to vote in only one of those places.

Mr. Canavan: The point is that when the Common Market referendum Bill went through Parliament no minimum percentage was laid down. The very fact that hon. Members are intervening in my speech shows that they understand what I am getting at, that the Bill is imperfect. Otherwise, my hon. Friends would not have tabled Amendment No. 77. That amendment may not be reached. It is up to us to see that a Bill is as near perfect as possible when it leaves here. Heaven knows what the other place will do to the Bill.

Mr. George Cunningham: We knew all this when the original text was drafted. It was fully taken into account. The matter can be explained more fully later in the debate.

Mr. Canavan: Only if Amendment No. 77 is reached. I am glad that my hon. Friend now admits that the Bill as it stands is imperfect. The clause is unworkable, because it talks about 40 per cent. of x—an unknown quantity.
In addition to speaking of the arithmetical possibilities of the clause as amended in Committee, I refer to the weird arithmetical possibilities which might become reality if the Bill went through, even if Amendment No. 77 were accepted. For example, the turn-out of the people of Scotland to vote in the referendum could be about 60 per cent. That is not unlikely, as it was about the number that turned out for the Common Market referendum. If 66 per cent. of those voting voted "Yes" and 34 per cent. "No", the result would be that only 39·6 per cent. of the electorate voted

"Yes". In other words, the vote would not clear the hurdle in the clause.
I can well imagine the outburst that such a result would cause in Scotland. It could be a recipe for conflict. People in Scotland would say that this House had been unyielding, because the Government would be statute-bound to table an order to annul the Bill. I ask hon. Members to imagine the political atmosphere that that would create in Scotland—the tension and potential conflict.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the matter would still be open to the House? Speaking for myself, I can say that if we had a result of the kind he has envisaged, with 39·6 per cent. voting in favour of devolution and only half that percentage voting against, I would certainly vote against a motion to repeal the Act. The discretion would be in the hands of the House. What we are seeking to do is to ensure that the House retains control.

Mr. Canavan: I accept that the discretion would be in the hands of the House, but the Secretary of State would be statute-bound to lay an order on the Table. One can well imagine the tension back in Scotland, where the people who turned out had voted by an overwhelming majority in favour of an Assembly. Tensions would be built tip between the moment of tabling the order and its debate on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is not realised by some of the English supporters of the Bill as it stands and by my hon. Friend's opponents is that the only party that could benefit from the kind of situation he is describing is the Scottish National Party? Neither the Labour Party nor any other unionist party in the House could conceivably benefit.

Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend sums the matter up admirably. The opponents of devolution, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) whom I see smiling, are simply playing into the hands of the Scottish National Party. They are unwittingly the SNP's biggest allies. They do not even realise it.
I turn to Amendment No. 73, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). If my amendment fails to secure the support of the House, I strongly recommend hon. Members to vote for Amendment No. 73, as the lesser of two evils. I emphasise this. It is an evil, albeit the lesser of the two.
Let us look at the arithmetic again. There could be a turn-out of 55 per cent. for the referendum. As many as 60 per cent. of that figure could vote in favour of setting up an Assembly, yet that would not clear the hurdle as defined by Amendment No. 73, because it would not meet the 1 in 3 qualification. There would be only 33 per cent. in favour of instead of the 33⅓ per cent. The Glasgow Herald poll on Monday showed that 55 per cent. of the people of Scotland want an Assembly. If we had a 60 per cent. turn-out and 55 per cent. of that figure voted in favour, that would not clear the hurdle as defined by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: My hon. Friend is very much helping the House by giving us these hypothetical examples of what might happen under different amendments. It is implicit in what he is saying that he would accept each of those results as valid. It would help the House, in deciding whether to support his amendment, if he could indicate at which percentage figure he would say "No".

Mr. Canavan: That is a valid point, to which I shall come later. It is wrong for this place to build in an arithmetical hurdle, particularly an ill-defined one, in advance of the referendum. Let me explain why. The principle behind the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central is the same as the principle behind the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. They are changing the rules on referendums as they go along. Some people in Scotland may have been resident in Northern Ireland when the referendum was held there, but for most people in Scotland the only referendum of which they have had experience is the Common Market referendum. No minimum percentage figure was laid down there. It is interesting to note that the results of

that referendum in Scotland produced a "Yes" vote of 35·7 per cent. and a "No" vote of 25·4 per cent. In other words, both sides failed the 40 per cent. hurdle and the "No" side, the side I was on, failed to clear the 33⅓ per cent. hurdle. Had those rules been operating then there would have been stalemate.
I know that hon. Members who are anti-Common Market think, in retrospect, that it would have been a good idea to include a minimum percentage figure. However, when the referendum was held in 1975 the status quo was Market membership, not non-membership. Our task as anti-Marketeers would have been made much more difficult if we had had built in a percentage hurdle similar to that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend remember that the introduction of the referendum was something done in the previous Bill, last year? That was a change made, in the wisdom of the House, as a desirable thing. Is my hon. Friend saying that because that was a change made after the first Bill was introduced he is opposed to the whole idea of having a referendum on this issue?

Mr. Canavan: No. I am not opposed to a referendum on constitutional issues; I am opposed to building in these minimum percentage rules and I am suspicious of hon. Members who were conspicuous by their silence at the time of the Common Market referendum and who are now changing the rules because they are opposed to devolution. It is as simple as that.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the problems here is not the question, when we come to the referendum, of whether we are for or against devolution in principle? The question is about this Bill, which will ultimately become an Act. Many people in Scotland are in favour of devolution but not in favour of this form of devolution. That will be an offsetting factor in the turn-out which makes the introduction of a hurdle even more pernicious.

Mr. Canavan: I do not accept that completely, because I believe that hon.


Members who are in favour of devolution in principle should support the Bill. I believe that the Scottish people have enough wisdom to see that even though the Bill may be imperfect in some respects they should vote for it if they believe in devolution in principle.
There is a more important principle at stake here. Until now it has been part of our tradition that democratic decisions in our society are taken by the people who take the trouble to turn out. Until now the calculation of the result has always been on the basis of those who have turned out. This is the first time that a result on a crucial vote will be calculated not just on the basis of those who have turned out but those who did not bother to turn out—the apathetic, the lethargic, the lazy, the "don't knows". All of them will come into the reckoning of the final result. That is a dangerous precedent. It could encourage apathy and we, of all people, should be encouraging democratic participation in decision-making.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my hon. Friend accept that this is not a precedent? The customary practice of this House is that there has to be a quorum before decisions are taken.

Mr. Canavan: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point. The quorum in this House is 40. If everyone is still alive there are 635 hon. Members of this House. Suppose that 21 voted for a decision and 19 voted against. The vote would be carried. Yet 21 votes out of 635 is less than 4 per cent. That is what is needed to carry a vote in the House of Commons, the Mother of Parliaments, yet some people here claim that the people of Scotland must turn out and clear either a 33⅓ per cent. or a 40 per cent. hurdle.
If the Bill is passed as it stands, and even if the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central is carried, it could lead to other built-in minimum percentages in other elections. I am sure that there are some people who would politicaly conspire and connive at using this as a precedent in order to interfere with other democratic decision-making and democratic machinery in our society.
Let us suppose, for example, that we had the 40 per cent. rule for local

authority elections. Suppose that a candidate for a local authority had to have a minimum 40 per cent. of the electorate voting for him before he could be returned. Suppose that we bought it down to the alternative vote system in order to get that minimum 40 per cent. At present, the situation is that we would not have any councilors but would have direct rule from this House. The Secretary of State would have to send in local government commissioners in order to carry out the functions of local government.
Similarly, suppose that we had such a rule in a General Election. I wonder how many hon. Members now sitting here would still be in this place if we had a minimum qualification of 40 per cent. of the electorate. Let us take the 170 Members who voted in Committee for the amendment which introduced the 40 per cent. Hurdle. I wonder how many of them would have cleared the 40 per cent. hurdle or even the 33⅓ per cent. hurdle.
Some research assistance has been given to me in this matter, and I understand that of the 36 Labour Members who voted for the 40 per cent. hurdle only 10 would have cleared it in the October 1974 General Election. It is interesting to note that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who had a comfortable majority in October 1974, nevertheless got the support of only 34 per cent. of the electorate in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central got the support of only 27 per cent. of the people of his constituency. In other words, neither of them would have cleared their own hurdles.

Dr. Phipps: Would not my hon. Friend agree that we are talking here about something rather different—an irreversible constitutional change? Whereas I accept that the election of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) would be a matter of national importance, I do not believe it to be a matter of irreversible constitutional change.

Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend is arguing that the people who should be taking the ultimate decision on this constitutional change should not be subject to the same rules for election as in a referendum.
I have been referring to some of my hon. Friends. I see the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) sitting opposite. He voted for the 40 per cent. hurdle, and no doubt, even as a fall-back position, he might even vote for my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central's amendment. He got the support of only 27 per cent. of his electorate. The man who hopes one day to become Secretary of State for Scotland—I shudder at the thought of that ever happening—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), got only 32 per cent. support from his electorate. In other words, neither of them cleared even the lower of the two hurdles.

Mr. Robert Adley: Perhaps I can help to confirm what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If the 40 per cent. rule had applied at the last General Election, perhaps none of us would have been sitting here today.

Mr. Canavan: It would have been a vastly diminished Parliament if that rule had been applied. It is also significant that the amendment which introduced this hurdle was passed in Committee with the support of only 27 per cent. of the electorate of the House of Commons.

Mr. Martin Flannery: My hon. Friend is drawing a parallel between a referendum and a General Election, but there is a qualitative difference between the two which makes his comparison inapt.

Mr. Canavan: I realise that there are degrees. Nevertheless, at the end of the day I hope that my hon. Friend is not arguing that a referendum is more important than a General Election, or the other way round. I can see some sense even in saying that a minimum number of people must turn out before the referendum becomes valid, but that is not what the Bill says. The Bill as it stands says that there must be not a minimum percentage of the people turning out but a minimum percentage of people actually casting a vote in a particular way.

Mr. Ian MacCormick: I am agreeing with the hon. Gentleman when I ask whether it is not the case that, if we are here as Members of the House of Commons, we are surely the people who decide changes in the constitution, and

we do not have to have referendums and so on. If we decide to make a change in the constitution, why not jolly well just make it?

Mr. Canavan: Again, I must underline that the referendum is of a consultative nature and that it will be up to this House at the end of the day to take a decision one way or the other. Yet, as the Bill stands, the rules under which we operate are different from the rules under which the people of Scotland are being asked to operate, during the referendum campaign.
I have had representations made to me by the trade union movement in Scotland, which is concerned to see this 40 per cent. rule thrown out in its entirety and not even the half-way house or compromise of 33⅓ per cent. accepted. I understand that the Scottish TUC and the Scottish Executive of the Labour Party are in favour of my amendment because they see the arithmetical minimum percentage hurdle as being an attack on the Bill itself, an attempt to sabotage the Bill. They also see it as a dangerous precedent.
I wonder how many Opposition Members would like to see minimum percentages similar to those proposed built into trade union rule books, for example. We often hear them complaining about decisions taken at union meetings by a minority of members. Instead of encouraging more union members to turn up to meetings, they castigate the ones who do turn up. It would be far more responsible to encourage democracy by getting more people to turn up rather than building in all these minimum percentage rules, which might at the end of the day make democracy unworkable.
This referendum must not only be fairly constructed but must also be seen to be fair. We see referendums in other parts of the world which are obviously rigged—the Pinochet referendum in Chile, for example. That kind of activity merely brings democracy into disrepute. I would not like to see this House bringing democracy into disrepute in the eyes of the people of Scotland. But, unless the Bill is changed, that is how the people of Scotland, including the Labour Party and the trade union movement, will see it. That is why I ask the House to support my amendment.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad to follow the speech of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), simply in the sense that there is an amendment in my name and that of several of my hon. Friends which has the same effect as that moved by the hon. Gentleman.
The kind of debate that we have had, the kind of interruption, and the kind of example that has been given in relation to the question whether we should have a referendum and whether the percentage figure is right, very much bear out the view of people such as myself that we were very foolish in the first place ever to go down the path of a referendum in terms of constitutional practices in this country.
It is precisely with the principle of referendums that I want to deal this evening. To follow up one particular point made by the hon. Gentleman, what worries me particularly concerning the practice, as opposed to the principle of referendums, is that in the Common Market referendum no test was built in. It is offensive in some respects to opinion in Scotland that for the purpose of this Bill, over which there is great controversy, a test should be built in when this was not done for the previous referendum.
8.30 p.m.
If a decision had been taken, quite apart from the Bill, on what kinds of tests should be used in relation to referendums, it would be possible to look at this question in a very different light. The position that we now have in the Bill is offensive, in that there is an impression, rightly or wrongly, that the House of Commons is changing the rules to suit it as it goes along, instead of following established constitutional practice.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The point about no test being built into the referendum on the Common Market constantly arises. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) had New Clause 15 on the Paper at the time of the Common Market referendum Bill. He wished to move that the vote in the referendum should be declared null and void if there was an overall vote of less than 60 per cent. of those eligible to vote, and if there was not a two-thirds overall majority voting

one way or the other. It was not called. Had it been called, the situation might have been much healthier. It was not by default on the part of Labour Members that the issue was not raised; it was simply a matter of the rules of the House concerning the calling of amendments.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am not impugning the motives or intentions of hon. Members concerning referendums. My point is that the House, when it has discussed referendums previously, has at no time accepted a test. No matter what might have been debated or introduced, no practice has been laid down and no principle has been accepted in relation to referendums. That is why, whether in relation to a referendum on the Scotland Bill, the Wales Bill, capital punishment, immigration, or anything else, I believe that it would be offensive to have a test built into a piece of legislation rather than into legislation on the broad principle of referendums.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. Gentleman has repeated the accusation that an attempt is being made to change the rules as we proceed. I know that this is the Scottish National Party viewpoint, but it is shared by others. We have had a Bill presented by the Government in which there was no provision for a minimum percentage of votes. When we were on the Second Reading and hon. Members attempted to make various points, they were told not to make Committee points during the Second Reading, as there would be an opportunity to make them in Committee. They were told that there would be a chance to improve the Bill in Committee. My hon. Friends have put forward amendments which have been accepted by the House in Committee. That is not a matter of changing the rules. It is the procedure of the House. Whenever a Bill comes before the House, amendments are put, sometimes by the Government and sometimes by Back Benchers on either side. When they are sensible amendments, they get the support of the majority of hon. Members. There has been only one referendum so far, and that was on the Common Market. From some of the statements by hysterical sections of the Scottish Press—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Mr. Buchanan-Smith.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Evans) for his intervention, but it demonstrates how little he understands the position. He speaks as though we are not dealing with a matter of principle, and as though it is simply a matter of practice one way or the other. Indeed, it also shows the extent of the alienation of this House from opinion in Scotland. Hon. Members should realise that taking action of this sort will be offensive to certain sections of opinion in Scotland.
Whether in this context or in any other, I believe that the referendum is a matter of constitutional principle. If we use this constitutional tool to change the rules, the House is hiding its head in the sand if it believes that it will not be seen as offensive by genuine sections of opinion, not just Scottish opinion. Many reasonable people in Scotland feel as I do. Whether hon. Members feel that it is proper or not, that is how this matter is genuinely seen.
I want to make one other point. I shall be brief. I do not want to repeat the same arguments that I made in Committee. I support the view of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire. If we are to be consistent with what happened previously, the percentage level should be set as close as possible to the level accepted as being conclusive in the EEC referendum. That is all I want to say with regard to practice. I would certainly support the fall-back position, but only as a fall-back position.

Mr. Ian Gow: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what percentage he thinks would have been acceptable as the minimum when the referendum took place on the EEC?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am totally against referendums as a matter of principle. Therefore, I shall not start talking about percentages one way or another, because I believe that that is purely academic when one talks about a principle in which one does not happen to believe.
The point that I want to make is exactly the same as the one I made in Committee. I am against referendums. I believe that this debate demonstrates that they are eroding the sovereignty of this Parliament.
Ordinary people have put it to me in recent weeks that when Parliament cannot make up its mind on things like Europe or the Scottish Assembly—matters that require a great deal of thought, consideration, knowledge and judgment—it passes such matters over to the electorate to give its decision. But issues like capital punishment, immigration and others on which the general public have strong views demonstrate the nonsense of referendums, because Parliament does not give the electorate the opportunity to take a decision on them. That is an important point. It demonstrates that this House can pick and choose what is proper or not proper for a referendum.
In that way we are creating complete and utter constitutional nonsense. I therefore believe that what is now happening justifies the views of those who were against the introduction of the referendum on the EEC.
I go a stage further, and repeat what I said earlier. We are dealing with a consultative referendum. I begin to wonder what on earth is the point of putting a test into such a referendum in order to trigger off certain other mechanisms. If it is a purely consultative referendum, and if we still believe in the sovereignty of Parliament—as I do—no test should be built in at all. In the light of that consideration it should be left to Parliament to make up its mind. The moment we build in a test we are setting our feet on the slippery slope.
At the time of the EEC referendum many of us argued about making a consultative referendum into a mandatory referendum. We are moving by stages and by stealth to the position where the referendum becomes an established part of our constitution. When we reach it the whole sovereignty of Parliament will be eroded completely. For these reasons, on the ground of both practicality and principle, I think that it is wrong to build in any sort of test.
I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends share my views about the principle of the referendum. To them I say that there is only one thing that we can do tonight—vote in favour of the amendment of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire. If we believe in the sovereignty of Parliament we should not


seek to introduce referendums into the constitution.
The Leader of the Opposition has said that in certain circumstances she may use a referendum. For purely practical reasons I think that if we in the Conservative Party embrace that kind of idea—I hope that we do not—and if we vote against the amendment of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire, we shall be hanging an albatross around our necks.
On the ground of practicality—on which I do not place a great deal of weight—and of principle, particularly for those of us who wish to maintain and preserve the sovereignty of the House of Commons, the only course is to support the amendment.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). I agree with the burden of his speech, This whole approach bring Parliament and the House fundamentally into contempt.
The principle of the referendum is that intrinsically there are certain issues on which this House cannot decide. This is a greater attack on and condemnation of the House than anyone could make in any specific direction. I was the only hon. Member on this side of the House who voted against the EEC referendum in principle, because I believed that the decision should have been taken on the Floor of the House and that we should not have passed the buck to the public outside.
What has happened on this Bill has brought the House into contempt. Many hon. Members voted for the principle of the Bill at Second Reading when they did not really like it at all. They thought that they would kill the measure by voting against the guillotine. As a result, the guillotine was defeated and the first Bill collapsed. The Government brought in a second Scotland Bill and we had Members of the House voting for the Second Reading once again when they were on public record outside as being opposed to it in principle. Because the guillotine on this occasion was made a quasi issue of confidence, they voted for it. Now, they have decided to try to stop the Bill by creating the hurdle outside the House—

one that is impossible to obtain. They have tried to support the Bill in the House yet they will go outside at the referendum and try to defeat it.
Ordinary people outside the House do not understand why hon. Members who voted for the principle of the Bill should go outside and campaign against it in the referendum. They do not understand this. If hon. Members have any courage or respect for the traditions of the House, they will vote as they believe in the House and that should be final. To put in special tests, whether it be this percentage or that, is of no value and destroys the position of this House.
8.45 p.m.
We have an extra addition to the joke that is being perpetrated on us tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) asked what the House would do if there were a two-to-one majority for devolution but if the total "yes" vote was 39 per cent. instead of 40. My hon. Friend said that the matter would come back to the House for settlement and the House would say "If the people of Scotland want this by a two-to-one majority, that was not the percentage we wanted but we shall be willing to pass it." What percentage in the case of a two-to-one majority would my hon. Friend go down to before he felt that the House would agree to act on its own opinion?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: That will be a matter we shall decide when the time comes.
My hon. Friend referred to the parallel of our going into Europe. That was an issue on which we as Members of Parliament could make up our minds on merit or demerit. In regard to 90 per cent. of Labour Members, or certainly a high proportion of them, I believe that the only reason why we agreed to support the Scotland Bill was that we were told that there was an overwhelming demand in Scotland for the measure. There is no other reason. Most of us think that it is a bad Bill but that it is wanted in Scotland. Many of us wanted to have a referendum to find what was the real opinion on this matter. There is no other case for the Bill than that Scotland wants it. If Scotland wants it, that is fair enough, but let us know that before we can legislate on the matter.

Mr. Mackintosh: My hon. Friend condemns himself out of his own mouth. There are many people outside the House who want things that are not supported in this House. We have only to take the subject of capital punishment and also the question of proportional representation to discover that there are strongly held views outside the House. There are many such issues.
The principle on which the House operates is based on the judgment of the House, and that is what should govern us. If my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden is fundamentally opposed to devolution, he should rely on his own judgment and face his electors rather than vote for it and then try to kill it in this way. It brings the House into contempt when people are prepared to behave in that way.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Whatever the issues in the Bill for or against Scotland, I think we can all agree that there is nothing in it for Merseyside. I am told by some Scottish friends that the Bill is necessary. I am told by other Scottish friends for whom I have equal regard that this measure is not wanted. We fear that the Bill contains some risks for Merseyside. If the Conservatives say that the Bill is necessary, who cannot they produce four out of 10 Scots to come and vote for what they have been told is wholly demanded by Scotland? Why should we on Merseyside take any risk at all?

Mr. Mackintosh: I do not wish to read my hon. Friend any lessons, but, with deep respect to him, I am somewhat taken aback that his test for British measures governing the future of this country is "Is it good for Merseyside?" His test should be "Is it good for this country?" He should have a judgment on this matter irrespective of what goes on in Merseyside.

Mr. Ogden: rose—

Mr. Mackintosh: No, I cannot give way. I am answering my hon. Friend's point. He said that there was nothing in the Bill for Merseyside.

Mr. John Mendelson: My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) is being dishonourable. He is not listening to the argument.

Mr. Mackintosh: I do not know whether the House can hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) is saying from a seated position.

Mr. Mendelson: If my hon. Friend will give way, I will say it from a standing position.

Mr. Mackintosh: Very well, I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mendelson: My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian often disagrees with many of us, but he always does so honourably. Do not let him depart from that practice on this occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) did not use that argument. It was a passing reference to illustrate the point. My hon. Friend was dealing with a more fundamental point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian should address himself to that fundamental matter.

Mr. Mackintosh: Let me try to guess what the fundamental point was. If I put the interpretation that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone wishes on the intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) was saying that he is not in a position to judge reports that other hon. Members make to him on public opinion elsewhere and that, therefore, he is unaware of how to act. This position and this problem do not affect only Members from Merseyside. It applies to all Members. We have no method of divining these things. Nor should it be the task of hon. Members to say that they have doubts about something, so they will therefore take the popular pulse on the issue and if it is pulsing at 40 per cent. in favour they will go along with it. Hon. Members are here to contribute their judgments on the basis of the information they can get.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) has told me many times that he has never met one person who favours devolution. He must not have spoken to about 18,000 people in his constituency. No doubt he is happy to be in that position. Many people in Edinburgh favour devolution. Perhaps we mix with different people. My hon. Friend could not have come


to the STUC conference which pressed for devolution or to the conference of the Labour Party in Scotland which carried by an overwhelming majority a motion supporting devolution. Let us not get prissy about who supports devolution. It has widespread support.
Hon. Members are not here to say that because the majority of people support a certain cause, they must support it. We should support measures if we believe that they are good for Britain as well as for Scotland. That is what we are called upon to do, and when we go in for referendums and sub-specifications, involving percentage turn-outs and so on, and say that if that does not work the whole matter must be brought back here, we only bring this House into contempt.
I regret the whole move towards referendums. The referendum was provided in this Bill only to buy off certain opponents who thought that they could defeat the Bill in this way. The percentage vote provision was put in because those who support the referendum as a killer did not think that they could get a plain majority. It has nothing to do with principle.
If the anti-Marketeers who advocated a referendum on the EEC had not thought that they could win it on a plain majority, they would have pushed even harder for a minimum percentage provision. They did not do that because they thought that they would win.
It is clear from the polls that we have a two-to-one majority in favour of devolution. The opponents of the Bill saw that a simple majority referendum was not enough to kill devolution. Some hon. Members dispute that there is this support for devolution, but there has consistently been a two-to-one majority in all the polls since the 1974 General Elections.
I do not wish to take more time because many hon. Members want to take part in this debate. The percentage vote provision would bring the House into contempt and have a disastrous effect if there were a two-to-one majority that fell short of the 40 per cent. "Yes" vote. The House would be put in an impossible position if it were then to be asked to make a "take it or leave it" decision.

It would produce the gravest tension and feelings that injustice was being done to one section of the population.
Referendums are a bad idea. I wish that we had never gone down that track. As we have done so, let us stick at this point. Every election we have held, ranging from General Elections to the one unfortunate example of a referendum, has been decided by a simple majority. If any attempt is made to alter that principle for one referendum, it will be seen as a method of fiddling the result. That cannot be good for democracy, for the Government or for anyone who supports them. I hope that we reject the percentage vote.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I regard the debate as a question of principle. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) on his arithmetical prowess, which befits an honours graduate in mathematics, but fundamentally we are discussing a principle.
I regard the decision that was taken on 25th January this year as one of ballot rigging. It was said then and I am saying it now. The Press looked at it and formed its own conclusions. It had no difficulty in separating from reality the cackling hypocrisy that has come from some Members of the House.
A headline in the Glasgow Herald said:
Road block in path of Assembly. Devolution stalls at crossroads.
The Scotsman said "Rigged referendum". In The Times there appeared the phrase "A spoke in the wheel". It thought that 40 per cent. was far too high. That is not a Scottish paper. A heading in one of the leaders in The Guardian said
Dead men win no referendums".
The Guardian found, in looking at that decision, for all the arguments which have been put forward in favour of it, that it was proposed by those who were absolutely against the concept of devolution and who, fearing the result in the referendum, had to demean themselves by putting up this barricade of the 40 per cent. which had not existed hitherto.
In the meantime I have studied a document which was issued at the time of the run-up to the previous referendum, the White Paper "Referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European


Community "presented to Parliament by the Lord President of the Council in February 1975. I refer here to Appendix B.
I have had a look at that document to see what sort of provision had been made in referendums in other countries which the Government in those days singled out as worthy of the attention of the House of Commons. It said that, basically, in countries such as Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland—the United Kingdom itself was not mentioned, but it referred to Northern Ireland, the EEC and Gibraltar—a decision was to be taken on a majority of the votes cast, without any reference to the total of the electorate, alive or dead, on the electoral roll.
The only country that I could find which seemed to give some sort of weighting was Denmark. There was a complicated provision which I thought at first sight related to the motion and the amendment of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). On looking at that again. I see that the position was different. It said that
A Draft Law put to referendum is deemed to have been rejected if a majority of those voting vote against it and if the Noes comprise at least 30 per cent. of those entitled to vote.
In other words, there was a weighting in favour of the proposal rather than a weighting against it. Otherwise, the weighting throughout the whole history of referendums has been on a simple majority.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Danish result. He said that there was a reference to the total size of the electorate. Does he agree that in the case of the Danish result 56·7 per cent. of the electorate voted "Yes"?

Mr. Wilson: My answer to that question is to say "So what?" This was a general provision in relation to the Danish electorate. They had their own vote on that proposal. It was weighted the other way round from the proposal of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. Let us face up to that fact. It was rigged in favour of the proposal rather than against it.
The House, because it dislikes any attempt to chisel away any of its

sovereignty, goes out of its way to erect a barrier against the wishes of the Scottish people. I said on 25th January that I had no doubt about the result of the referendum, but here we are talking about a question of principle, and of making sure that that principle is adhered to.
9.0 p.m.
Another thought has been put into the debate—I think that it was adverted to by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire and by some of the newspapers, so it is not entirely my own idea—that certain benefits might flow to the SNP from the situation which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has, in his enthusiasm, produced. That idea is that the House is sowing a minefield for itself. At the end of the day, it will have to consider whether to trigger off the amendment.
Hon. Members will then have to face the problems that were referred to by one of the other supporters of the original amendment. They will have to decide, in their own judgment, whether the Assembly should be allowed to be put into action, in view of the result of the vote. Hon. Members will have to use their judgment at that time, but if a standard is set in advance it will not necessarily help them in that judgment, since in all matters of this kind a judgment has to be made according to the temper and mood of the time and the facts of the situation. One cannot take such a decision in the cool or heat of this Chamber now, or on 25th January, for that matter. It will be done on reflection after the result is known.
I turn now to what The Guardian had to say on 27th January, in the leading article to which I referred, headed "Dead men win no referendums":
In other words, a new rule has abruptly been introduced for the referendum on the Assembly, at the behest of those who are known to want the Assembly to be defeated; it will hardly be surprising if the vote is therefore seen in Scotland as a convenient trick rather than an imaginative constitutional innovation. And even then, if we get a referendum in which, on a 60 per cent. poll (a shade below the turnout for the Europe referendum) nearly two-thirds of the voters back the Assembly, only to be told they cannot have one, the result is unlikely to be to damp down, let alone settle for good the long running controversy over Scottish devolution and Scottish independence.

Mr. Adley: In view of the keenness felt for the 40 per cent. weighting, perhaps we can look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) how he intends to introduce some form of weighting to take account of the fact that there are 71 Scottish Members of Parliament and 560 English Members.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman implants another idea in my mind, and I thank him for it.
I turn now to The Observer—not a noticeably Scottish newspaper—which said, in a leading article on 29th January:
One other scenario is equally bad. Suppose the referendum is held under the system adopted last week, which requires 40 per cent. of the total Scottish electorate to support devolution. Suppose, on a low poll, there is a substantial majority for devolution, but amounting to only 38 or 39 per cent. of those entitled to vote. Would the demand for home rule disappear?
Or would the Scots, feeling frustrated, be angry about the situation?
Those are the realities which newspapers based in London have thought it right to point out.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: Does my hon. Friend know that I intend to ask the leave of the House to present a Bill to ensure that at parliamentary elections no candidate can be elected unless 40 per cent. of the electorate vote for him and that there shall be successive by-elections until a candidate obtains that proportion? Does my hon. Friend think that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) will sponsor that Bill?

Mr. Wilson: We shall await with interest the presentation of the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury will have a comment to make. At least, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to deal with many of the other arguments that have been presented.
I shall come to a conclusion now, since I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. If the newspapers that I have quoted are correct in their assessment, a battle will develop in these circumstances. It will not be just a battle between people and Parliament. I assure the House that it will be a battle between the Scottish people and the English Parliament, and

the Scottish people will ultimately decide the issue.

Mr. William Ross: It is ironic that there is all this talk about a referendum and about fractions when we recollect that this is the first year when no one in Scotland will be able to have a referendum on the subject of temperance. All those who have such passion for a certain fraction—some seem to think that it is new—fail to realise that they never raised their voices when we wiped out just that last year. We wiped out a fraction formula. If my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) had known that and known anything at all about Scotland, he might have found it useful in presenting his amendment in Committee.
Until this year, any town or ward in a town could have a referendum on the question of "No licence" Let no one think that this is unimportant. On 25th January, when we had our last debate on this matter, one hon. Member coined the phrase "Freedom and whisky gang together."
There was something to wipe out the celebrated freedom of the Scots—namely, to have a drink in their own area. The formula provided that 35 per cent. of those entitled to vote should vote. Further, it was provided that, of those voting, there should be a 55 per cent. vote for the change. Many of those whom I have heard arguing tonight did not like that formula. They thought that that which the formula provided for would be too difficult to attain, although in many instances it was attained. But that feeling persisted. However, there was agreement in the House that resulted in a decision only last year.
Let us not think that referendums are new. Let us not think that formulae are new. There was a far better formula provided than the one cooked up subsequently. It was subsequently discovered that what had been cooked up was not exactly what was meant, with the result that another vague amendment was tabled. That was virtually thrown away when it was claimed that the hurdle would not be cleared with a very small majority and that when the result is returned to the House the House will give it further consideration.
The fact is that, when it is mandatory that the Secretary of State has to bring in an order for repeal and we have to go back to what is contained in the statute, there will be no doubt what will be laid before the House and what those who supported the formula will be demanding.
It is reasonably well known that I am not a supporter of referendums. I never have been a supporter, whether in Shadow Cabinet or in Cabinet. This is the place where people should make up their minds. If there is a referendum every day of the week, there will be a different result every day of the week. A referendum reflects opinion at only a certain time. That is the argument that I have had time and time again with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). There may be some justification when some action follows the referendum, but having had two national referendums, one on whether we should stay in or come out of the Common Market and one in Northern Ireland in respect of Northern Ireland, I think that there will be some sympathy for those who suggest that we are changing the rules at a time, in a way and in respect of one part of the country that will be construed, and has been construed, in Scotland as a last-ditch effort to make it as difficult as possible to achieve what is wanted. That is a just criticism. That is how such action will be seen and is seen.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) quoted the figures of a 60 per cent. poll. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) had a 60 per cent. poll at the General Election.

Mr. George Cunningham: Yes, I did, actually.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend had only a very small share of the poll. The figure that I saw in The Times really means that he should not be here at all.

Mr. Cunningham: I did better than most, Willie.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend's formula provides for 40 per cent., and he had nothing like that. I do not necessarily agree with that formula—in fact, I disagree with it—but he must secure that himself if that is what he wishes upon

the people of Scotland. That is what he and every other hon. Member must secure.

Mr. Cunningham: I was hoping to say something about the question of the comparability with elections of Members of Parliament if I was called in the debate. I hope that my right hon. Friend has not given the impression that the result in my personal election was as bad as he is suggesting. I got more votes than all the votes of the other candidates added together, which is more than most Members can say.

Mr. Ross: It seems that there were no real victors.
The more that the percentage is raised and a barrier is created, the more the decision depends upon arithmetic, and the more it is that the dead and the disinterested determine the result. That is absolute nonsense. It is dangerous nonsense.
I know that certain Members who voted for this formula do not want devolution. With respect to the majority of Members who voted for Second Reading, in my opinion the people of Scotland will make the decision, but it will be not on the formula but on what is put before them. Let all the statistics be known, and then the matter can come back to the House. If only a narrow majority is in favour of the proposal, the House should turn it down. It will depend on the number of people who vote. That is one of the weaknesses of the formula.

Mr. Cunningham: It produces exactly that.

Mr. Ross: It does not. The hon. Gen-man has laid down 40 per cent. If we get a 60 per cent. poll and two to one are in favour of the Assembly, it can be turned down. That is absolutely unjustified. It will be seen to be a trick and to be erecting unjustified hurdles. I sincerely hope that the House will realise the dangers and will accept the amendment. Let the House itself decide.

Mr. Adley: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Ross: I shall not give way. I am about to sit down. I trust that the House will support the amendment. If not, I am prepared, and I hope others will join me, to support Amendment No. 70.

Mr. Sproat: I should like to start by commenting on the speech by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who, I hope, will not leave the Chamber just now. What struck me about his speech was that suddenly we saw the touch of fear coming upon the Scottish National Party. The hon. Gentleman's voice even began to break in the middle of his speech, because for the first time he began to realise that he may not get 40 per cent. of the people of Scotland to say "Yes". Frankly, since SNP Members have been elected to this House, they have been telling us that there is overwhelming support in Scotland not only for devolution but for independence. Now, suddenly, they are afraid that they will not get 40 per cent. in favour of a Scottish Assembly.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: rose—

Mr. Sproat: We now see which way the wind is blowing. Fear is clutching at their hearts. They will get their deserts in the referendum and in the General Election.
We have heard from the SNP that it is a terrible trick on Scotland to interpose some kind of mathematical hurdle, some kind of majority, before the people of Scotland can get what they want. Yet it turns out that the SNP in its constitution, which it has not mentioned, has such a hurdle. I have here a cutting from the Glasgow Herald on Monday, which states:
The Provost of East Kilbride was yesterday expelled from membership of his local branch of the Scottish National Party. … A two-thirds majority vote was required in order for the motion to succeed.
That is absolutely typical of the double standards and hypocrisy of the SNP, and I hope that this House and Scotland will forget about what that party says in future.

Mrs. Bain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hate to interrupt his flight of rhetoric. First, he is most guilty of hypocrisy inasmuch as he accuses the SNP of trying to speak for the people of Scotland when he is trying to take that mantle upon himself. Secondly, does he accept that the SNP, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said, wants the right for the Scottish people to choose within a free situation, not a situation of

bitterness and acrimony which is being imposed upon them by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and his colleagues?

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Sproat: There can be nobody on either side of the House outside those in the SNP ranks who would not agree that the acrimony over matters in Scotland had been introduced by them.
The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) quoted my election figures and said that we did not poll 40 per cent. of the vote. That is fair enough. But he must not confuse a vote in a General Election with a vote in a referendum. A vote in a General Election is reversible in five years at the maximum whereas a vote in a referendum, such as that on the Common Market, is for ever. There is, therefore, no comparison between a General Election and a referendum.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: A General Election is a multi-choice election. Here we have a binary choice. I am surprised that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) with his mathmatical leanings, should stray in this direction.

Mr. Sproat: That is true. That is the next point I would make.

Mr. Canavan: It is not a binary situation. One can vote "Yes" or "No" or stay at home. The point I was making was that the stay-at-homes would be taken into account. That is why 40 per cent. is wrong.

Mr. Sproat: I agree with the hon. Member for Cannock. We have heard SNP Members say what a shocking thing it is for the House of Commons to change the rules. There are no rules, because we have had only one referendum. But even if we take this as having set at least some rules, the Government have already changed them. The last referendum was on a United Kingdom basis, and this is to be on a Scottish basis.
What is the reason for that change? If ever there was a swindle, it is that the British people are not to be allowed to decide. The Government know that, if there is any chance at all of establishing a Scottish Assembly, it is by allowing only the people of Scotland to vote in the referendum. The Government are the


ones who are cheating by changing the rules.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) asked: if the House of Commons cannot change its mind about a Bill in the middle of its consideration of it, what can it do? It is ludicrous for the SNP to complain about changing the Bill. Members of the SNP have tried to change it. Why should not we try to do so? The Government have already cheated by allowing only the people in Scotland to vote.
Surely, the prime point is that we are not talking about some matter which is reversible if the Government changes. We are talking about the British constitution. If a two-thirds majority is required in practically every local golf club to change its constitution, surely it is reasonable that at least a 40 per cent. majority should be needed to change the British constitution. In fact I think that 40 per cent. is rather low to have the validity to make a change of this magnitude. However, 40 per cent. is what the House agreed to and it is what the House agreed to and it is reasonable.
This is an issue of magnitude which changes the history of our country and the nature of 270 years of perhaps the most successful democratic co-operation that the world has ever known. Surely, we are not going to allow this to be swept aside because of a day, of perhaps appalling weather or because of apathy. We know that there is apathy. Are we saying that the British constitution is to be changed because there is a 50 per cent. vote and 26 per cent. are in favour of the change? Are we really going to throw aside 270 years of history? Of course not.
I hope that the House will not allow itself to be badgered or bullied into it because of the antics of the SNP and the Government. And in fact the Government are doing quite well—I give them that gratuitous help. Why should they be scared? We know, however, that electoral fear was the original motive behind the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said that he was against referendums. So did the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I, too, am against them. I, too, have voted against them every time. But the House has decided that there will be a referendum.

As someone who prizes above everything the democratic constitution of this country, I at least demand that we write in a safeguard to preserve that constitution. That is why I shall support the 40 per cent. provision and oppose the amendment.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: In the course of my speech I shall refer to Amendment No. 73, which is on the Order Paper in my name. It is very similar to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), but I hope to refer to my amendment rather more than he did to his, in which he appeared to have strikingly little faith.
I should like first to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). It is very striking that those who in the past three or four years have confidently asserted in the House that the majority of the people of Scotland are overwhelmingly clamouring for some form of control over their own affairs, who have been unashamedly claiming to interpret the will of the majority of those people, should now be squealing with embarrassment because of an attempt to specify the number they must get to the polls to prove their assertions.
I was very surprised to hear that this afternoon the Scottish National Party had put out a Press statement saying that the Bill must be changed to its pristine form and that even if the requirement were changed to 33⅓ per cent. and even if the amendment of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns and my own amendment were carried, that would not satisfy it. The SNP said that unless the Bill were changed to its pristine form it would contemplate voting against the whole package on Third Reading.
In other words, if we were to tell the SNP "You must get one in three voters to the polls"—well below the majority of the Scottish people—"to prove your assertion that the Scots are demanding this", it would be prepared to throw the whole thing back into the melting pot. That must cast doubt on the question whether it is confident that it will be able to deliver that kind of vote.
If we had an independent observer amongst us today, I think that he would be very puzzled about the heat engendered in the course of the debate on the


principle before us. That principle, commonly accepted by anyone who takes part in public life or belongs to any organisation, trade union or political party, is that if one is to change the rules or constitution one requires more than a simple majority of those who turn up.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) said that he had received representations from trade unions. He will be aware that one of the moving forces for devolution and one of the opponents of the 40 per cent. rule is the National Union of Mineworkers' leader in Scotland, Mr. McGahey, and that if Mr. McGahey wishes to change the rules or alter the constitution of his union he has to deliver a two-thirds majority.
I should be very surprised if my hon. Friend could find any major national organisation—be it even a townswomen's guild or a women's institute—whose rules provide that a simple majority of those happening to vote is adequate to change the constitution. If that applies to so many voluntary organisations, surely it should also apply to the constitution of of the State.

Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend talks about trade unions, townswomen's guilds, and so on, but we are not discussing the need for a two-thirds majority or any percentage of those who turn up to vote. We are talking about a percentage of those eligible to vote, whether or not they turn up to vote. That is the distinction between the provision that we are debating and the other rules requiring a two-thirds majority of the delegates who turn up.

Mr. Cook: I entirely accept that there is a difference. If my hon. Friend is suggesting that what we should be putting in the Bill is a two-thirds majority qualification, I would regard that as far more demanding and more stringent than the amendment I have tabled. This is a principle that is recognised by other countries who put to the test issues affecting the constitution. The principle of a qualification of the majority that is required is so stringent in Australia that of the 32 referendums which Australia has held on the constitution only five have succeeded in passing the test. I am

appalled by the prospect of having 32 referendums on devolution before we reach the end. Nevertheless, there we have a democracy which has quite clearly grasped the principle that if there is to be a change in the constitution more than a simple majority of those who turn up at the polls is required.
The reason why countries accept that qualification for the constitution and why many independent organisations accept that qualification as it affects their constitutions, is that there is a difference between changing a constitution and electing office bearers or Members of Parliament. There has to be an election of a Member of Parliament. If there is a 40 per cent. poll we do not say to the constituents "No Member of Parliament for you until the next election." They have to have a Member of Parliament. We accept that. It is not necessary to change the constitution.
To prove that there is a demand for changing the constitution it is quite legitimate to demand more than a simple majority. Since my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire was good enough to tease me about the percentage who voted for me in my constituency I would point out that I did have to contest the election with three other people. I put it to my hon. Friend with great confidence, and I am sure that, being my hon. Friend, he will agree with me, that had my constituents gone to the polls and found that the ballot paper said "Do you think Robin F. Cook should continue to be Member of Parliament for Edinburgh, Central—yes or no? "I would have got my 40 per cent., if not 60 per cent.
I am struck by the fact that my hon. Friend should be so curiously hostile to those who abstain. In an intervention he said that the electorate had three choices—to vote "Yes", to vote "No", or to abstain. I accept that. The case for abstaining on this issue can be made strongly. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) has left the Chamber—no, I see that he has crossed the Floor; it is difficult these days to find out precisely where he stands. He raised a particularly relevant case, and we could give half a dozen more illustrating why people may choose to abstain. It is a perfectly valid choice.
What my hon. Friend is seeking to do is to ignore those who choose to abstain. Let us take the figure he gave when talking about my amendment. He said that if 55 per cent. of the people voted and 60 per cent. of those voted "Yes", that would still fail. If 45 per cent. of the electorate abstain we are surely entitled to take that into account. We cannot say that that does not matter—that nearly one in two of the electorate were not motivated to turn up and vote. We cannot say that we shall ignore them, shall take no account of the biggest single choice that was made. I do not think that that would be a fair way to treat that choice.
My hon. Friend says that a ridiculously low poll would be caught by the terms of his amendment because the Government could then make a judgment and take that poll into account as part of the overall circumstances. There are two flaws in that argument. The first is that it is the Government's decision whether to bring in the order, and the Government will be campaigning for a "Yes" vote. It has always struck me as being inherently improbable that, however low the turn-out, they would ever say to the House "Well, chaps, it was a disaster. Hardly anybody bothered to turn out. The people of Scotland just do not seem to be interested in these curious proposals we are putting to them. We shall therefore lay the order."
Of course the Government would not say that. It was evident to anyone who spoke to members of the Government in private before the night of 25th January that however low the poll might be it was highly unlikely, provided that there was a straight majority, that the Government would bring in the order.
There is another case. That bolt has been shot. On the night of 25th January this House decided to go for the principle of minimum qualification. That has now been thoroughly aired and debated in the Scottish media.
If the House tonight strikes out any formula whatever and goes back to the previous position, the implication to the majority of the public will be that we have accepted that there shall be no bar on the turn-out and it will not be possible to rely on a ridiculously low poll or for my right hon. Friend the Member for

Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) to say that a narrow majority will not do. The thing will hold up in a straight majority in the referendum.
9.30 p.m.
My amendment would alter the 40 per cent. to a "one in three" formula. We should also reject the formula suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) for it is far too high. I know that he agrees that the formula should be fair and should be seen to be fair. I am bound to say that his suggested formula is not seen to be fair in Scotland. I know the sterling work that he has done in trying to sell it in Scotland—he has been on the media more than any other Member in the past fortnight. At least the people of Scotland have learnt that he does not have a Cockney accent as was at one time alleged.
One of the reasons why the people of Scotland do not accept my hon. Friend's formula as fair is that it exceeds the proportion of votes gained by most Governments elected since 1945. I know that that argument is said to be irrelevant, and so it is. Nevertheless, it is a widely populist argument. The majority of Governments elected in this country since 1945 got between 33 per cent. and 40 per cent. support in the electorate. All of them, except those in 1974, would have passed the 33⅓ per cent. test, however. Most people have found that a fair division. They grasp the simple rule that one in three should vote. I have met few who are prepared to say that "one in three" is not a reasonable test. Equally, I have found few who are prepared to accept 40 per cent. as a reasonable and fair test.

Mr. Leo Abse: Given my hon. Friend's acknowledgment of the irrelevancy of General Elections to the issue, apart from the appearance that it may present to the electorate, when he asks the question "Is it fair?" I ask "Fair for whom?" Is it not something that affects the whole population of Britain? Is it fair to the people of England or Wales, who would not want devolution at all? Is it fair to this House, when we have to have a complete revolution in our practice, a revolution in the functions of Members? Does not my hon. Friend really believe that he has


a duty to consider whether it is fair to Britain as well as whether it is fair to a vociferous minority in Scotland?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is making a separate point into which I will not be drawn. He will have the opportunity to make his own speech—a greater opportunity if I hurry on with mine.
The difference between 40 per cent. and 33⅓ per cent. can be put as follows: the 33⅓ per cent. test is a backstop. It would be a prudent step to be taken by the House in order to protect itself against a low turn-out, which, in fact, we do not expect to happen. We would be surprised if the rule had to be invoked. But if it needs to be invoked, it will protect the House against being bound to take note of a particularly low turn-out. The 40 per cent. test is not a backstop but a hurdle—and a hurdle created in the expectation that it will be very difficult to get over. That is the difference. I ask hon. Members to reflect on it when they cast their votes.
I want to refer to the argument that we are changing the rules. I notice that most of those who have complained most vociferously about changing the rules in the referendum were those who objected to the concept of the referendum. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) is no longer with us, but I am sure that he religiously reads Hansard and will study our speeches tomorrow.

Mr. George Cunningham: Only his own speeches.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend questioned the position that I am taking in voting for the Bill and campaigning for it. It may be that he and I move in different circles. I also suspect that he presents my position in a way that may not be entirely impartial, and it may not be surprising if people are confused by it. Nevertheless, the mere fact that he does not like the referendum cannot let him out of deciding what the ground rules should be.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns said that he believed that the problem we face tonight showed how foolish we had been to accept referendums in the first place. With respect, it does not show how foolish we were to accept referendums. It shows how

foolish we were to get into a referendum without ever deciding what should be the ground rules for referendums.
We are not changing the rules. There are no rules. Nobody who spoke at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Common Market referendum ever said that it would be binding as the ground rules for any future referendum, whether on devolution, wage control—if the Opposition chose to do such a thing—or independence. Although it looks as though we shall not have a second question in this referendum, I shall be very surprised if I serve out my political lifetime without having had at least one referendum on the question of independence.
I invite all Members of the House to consider whether they would be prepared to grant independence on a straight majority, irrespective of turn-out. If their answer to that is "No", I put it to them that they had better change the rules this time. If they do not change the rules this time, they will find it much more difficult to do so when bringing in a referendum on independence.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I shall return later in my speech to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). I, like many hon. Members, am also opposed to referendums as a means of taking decisions. I do not say, however, that my opposition to this is unchangeable. It is something which ought perhaps to be considered and thought about, but the motivation of those who have brought referendums into our constitution is certainly not such as to persuade me of the value of that system.
In the matter of the Bill, as in the matter of the Common Market referendum, those who have argued for a referendum have clearly done so not from a belief in the need to develop new forms of participatory democracy but because they hoped that a vote against would result in their view prevailing in the referendum when it had failed in the House of Commons. They have seen the referendum, in short, as a blocking device, and it is still being seen in that way.
If we regard a referendum in such a light, it is inevitable that our advocacy of it will be arbitrary and capricious, according to what it is we are seeking to


oppose. This point was very well made by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). Those who take this view do not, I repeat, see a referendum as a democratic method which could have a particular application or a general application but see it as a pragmatic device to frustrate their opponents. That is how it was used last time and that is how it is intended to use it this time. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) shakes his head.

Mr. Buchan: With respect, it was the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West who initiated the argument for the referendum. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) knows that his observation is not true in my case, and I resent it very much.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West precedes the codicil in my argument which I was about to introduce.
A few Members in the House favour referendums as a principle, and the hon. Gentleman is one of them. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) is another notable one. But the prime movers in the issue that we are dealing with today, and the prime movers equally in the issue of the Common Market referendum, people who look upon referendums not as a system of government but rather as an empirical exercise designed to defeat the thing that they dislike. It is inevitable that such people will move quickly from the idea of having a referendum to the idea of the establishment of barriers, since, after all, the object of a great many of them is not to achieve a fair result but to get their own way.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong concerning the Common Market referendum, which was carried out in order to comply with a specific promise to the electorate that it would be allowed to decide on that issue. It was not a gimmick at all.

Mr. Johnston: I think that that point has been answered by some of the interjections from a sedentary position.
The point I am making is that among hon. Members who are so keen on referendums, and who are pressing this

change most vehemently, there is to my knowledge none who is even interested in, far less sympathetic to, any form of electoral reform. Indeed, most of them are actively opposed to it. That is quite understandable, since their aim is not to see democracy work out justly but to get their own way by hook or by crook. That is the fact of the matter.
It is not surprising in consequence—this point has been made, but it is worth repeating—to find that the 40 per cent. barrier has been promoted by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who himself had a percentage vote of 34 per cent. and who supports a Government who received 28 per cent. support.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central says that this is an irrelevant and populist argument. I deny that it is an irrelevant or populist argument. It is a very relevant argument indeed. A referendum itself is the most populist device that one can find.
My first contention is that those who make out that a referendum with a fixed percentage barrier built into it is being introduced as some great constitutional safeguard are arguing a bogus prospectus and their motives have nothing to do with such high-flown matters. My second contention is that having a referendum to create a barrier, in the fashion that has been done, is wholly wrong.
There are five short reasons, some of which do not need to be developed because they have already been mentioned. First, it seems incredible to me, as an advocate of electoral reform who is always being told that none of these changes can be made without conferences lasting many years, or without at least a Speaker's Conference, that it should be thought that we can introduce an arbitrary matter of this kind which has great implications for Scotland without anything which passes for reflection.
Second—this point has already been made by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), both in his speech and in responding effectively to interventions—it is surely a new and most dangerous doctrine that abstention means dissent. That is a new doctrine. It is not a doctrine that I see people pressing to have adopted in any other kind of election. The point has already been


made about parliamentary elections, trade union elections or any other kind of election. The point about voluntary organisations was answered most effectively by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire.
Third, if we were to apply this percentage rule to the only referendum that we have had so far—the EEC referendum—we could see how unreasonable its effect is. Not all hon. Members read The Scotsman. Perhaps they will allow me to make a short quotation from an article by Colin Bell on 26th January which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury had certainly read, because he endeavoured to reply to it. This paragraph is relevant to what hon. Members will decide to do tonight. Mr. Bell said:
The total turnout in Scotland for that referendum was 61·4 per cent. of those on the electoral registers.
It is interesting that, in his article which appeared subsequently, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said:
As a general rule the poll in a referendum ought to be higher than in an election".
The hon. Gentleman then points out that the average turnout in General Elections in Scotland since 1950 has been 77·4 per cent., which is rather more than the 61·4 per cent. we got in the referendum.
The article by Mr. Bell continues:
Of those, 58·4 per cent. voted Yes, and this has been fairly generally taken as a convincing majority. However, if it had been demanded that 40 per cent. of all those eligible to vote had voted Yes, the Noes would have won—not by the weight of the 41·6 per cent. of the actual votes they got, but by the sleeping power of the 38·6 per cent. of the electorate who did not vote at all, strengthened by the 6,451 individuals who spoiled their ballot papers.
In order to have passed the 40 per cent. barrier, the "Yes" vote would have needed to reach 66 per cent. of those actually voting. A vote of 1,300,000 to 940,000 would not have counted, because more than 1 million abstentions—conscious or apathetic—would have tipped the balance.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Surely the hon. Member is making the case for the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). In the European referendum, had there been a minimum of this sort, the minimum

would have applied to the "No" vote and not to the "Yes" vote. In that case it was the "No" vote which would have altered the status quo and a treaty which had been signed. In this case it is the "Yes" vote that is making the change. Therefore, it was the "No" vote which counted in the Common Market referendum because that was a vote against the EEC.

Mr. Johnston: That is an interesting argument. The contention I am making is quite simple. It is that the percentage introduced by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury would have the effect of preventing the will of what is generally regarded as an acceptable majority from having its way. That is incontestable.

Mr. George Cunningham: I was questioning whether that figure would be generally so regarded. In my article to which the hon. Member has referred, I said that if Scotland had been independent at the time of the EEC referendum and it had been a question of whether we should go into Europe in the first place, instead of getting out of Europe, the result in Scotland alone would have justified its independent Parliament taking another look at the figures before it decided whether to go in.

Mr. Johnston: I do not think that there is any but a hypothetical question here of an independent Scotland having a right to look at the situation again. That was contained in the original proposition that the Government made.
The absent and dead argument has been dealt with by other hon. Members, as has the argument about changing the rules of the game, and I shall not go into either of those. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) said there were no rules. I say that the rule generally is that the first past the post wins the election. That is not a rule that I like, but it is accepted.
I do not understand the very clever comment—or so it seemed because of the reaction—by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, who got less than 40 per cent. of the vote in his constituency. He said that, if there was a referendum to approve the continuation of Mr. Robin F. Cook as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, he would get more than


40 per cent. of the vote. I do not see any reason why he should think that. I do not see why all the Tories and nationalists should suddenly vote for this estimable chap.
The provision that we are discussing moves clearly towards making the referendum mandatory. Those who sought to insert the 40 per cent. barrier claim that in the end the decision remains with the House. If that is so, why have we gone to the trouble of making this change at all? That point was well developed by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). In fact, the clear intention is mandatory. That would set a profoundly unwelcome precedent, particularly when embarked upon without any thorough consultation or consideration whatever.
I agree with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns that the effect of such a change in Scotland would be calamitous. We have been told by the critics of the Bill—interminably by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—that the Bill's contens are divisive and will produce conflict. But nothing in the Bill would in any way match the bitterness and sense of injustice in Scotland if Parliament, having decided to ask the people, then told them that it refused to accept the answer.
I ask the House to accept Amendment No. 69.

Mr. Foot: I wish to state my view and that of the Government on the amendments which are now before the House. Whatever may be the agreements or disagreements which I may have with some of my hon. Friends and with Members in other parts of the House, I am sure that nobody can complain about any attempt to change the provisions of this Bill one way or the other in Committee. That is what the Committee stage is for.
The House of Commons is entitled to make its own judgment about how the referendum should be conducted and how it should be operated. I do not accept from any quarter a charge of ballot rigging in the House of Commons or in Committee. We are seeking to come to a conclusion as to how best the referendum should be conducted.
I wish to emphasise strongly that from the moment it was suggested that there

should be a referendum on this subject—which was at the time the Scotland and Wales Bill was introduced in the previous Session—I have always stressed to the House that it was primarily important that we should seek to secure the widest possible agreement about the nature, form and conditions surrounding the referendum.
Whatever may be our agreements or disagreements about devolution or about the desirability of having a referendum—I understand the argument of those who are against that idea—I believe that it is in the nation's interest to try to secure the widest possible agreement about the form and nature of the referendum. The referendum is designed from different points of view to produce a conclusion, and since it is a conclusion to be accepted by the nation at large it is of the highest importance that there should be a widespread feeling that the form of the referendum is fair and the nature of the conditions surrounding it are equally fair. That is what we have always sought to secure, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) will acknowledge.
We accepted the agreement for a referendum at the time of the Scotland and Wales Bill. There was a motion on the Order Paper before the introduction of that Bill—a motion signed by hon. Members in different parts of the House—suggesting that there should be a referendum. The Government accepted that provision and said that they would include it in the Bill. But we then consulted the House and argued whether that referendum would be mandatory or consultative. The general feeling of the House was that it should be consultative. I think that was a proper and right conclusion, and we accepted it and incorporated it in the form in which we presented the referendum.
There were also doubts at the time of the debates on the Scotland and Wales Bill, and at the introduction of this Bill, about the preamble to the questions and about the questions themselves. Many of my hon. Friends criticised the form of the proposed preamble, and similar criticisms were made by Opposition Members. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire tabled an amendment to alter the form of the preamble.
We believed that it was important that we should reach general agreement on this point, so we accepted the amendment, which was in terms that accorded with the representations made by some of my hon. Friends who wanted to secure the preamble in an acceptable form. They wanted to remove anything that might be thought pejorative or prejudicial in its reference to the unity of the United Kingdom, one way or the other.
That was another way in which we sought to secure a referendum that would command general assent for its fairness, whatever the views of hon. Members on devolution.
It is of the highest importance that we should try to reach agreement on the question how the referendum is to be conducted, so that no great section of opinion—I do not say that we can do it so that the belief is 100 per cent., because there are bound to be some who will question it—believes that the form of the referendum and the way in which it is presented is not fair. That is of enormous value and importance for the country at large.
My view on this matter is very much the same as that of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, whatever our differences on the rest of the Bill. I read carefully what he said when we debated this topic in Committee. He expressed the matter so clearly that I am happy to adopt his precise words. He put formidably the case against a 40 per cent. figure, or any particular figure. He said:
If the conditions are met, or are nearly met, however closely, shall the House of Commons feel that it is difficult not to proceed on the basis of the figures written into the Bill? We shall de facto, if not de jure, have restricted the extent to which the referendum is consultative.
The right hon. Gentleman examined various aspects of the matter and said:
On balance, I feel that the House of Commons should leave itself in the position of being able to exercise its judgment in the light of all the circumstances rather than to write a precise figure into the Bill."—[Official Report, 25th January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 1530, 1532–3.]
I fully accept that argument. If we retain the 40 per cent. or even, to some extent, the 33 per cent. or, indeed, any figure, we shall to some extent impair—I do not say undermine—the consultative

nature of the referendum. We shall impair the final judgment that the House—not the Government—will be called upon to make. The Government have to refer back the House under the provisions of the Bill. If we write in any figure we may prejudice the consultative nature of the referendum, and the House has agreed that it should be a concultative referendum. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and others who have different views on different aspects agree with the primary consultative aspect of the referendum
My argument, and that of the right hon. Gentleman, is that writing in a figure, even though it does not absolutely and precisely undermine the consultative nature of the referendum, comes very near to doing so. Once a figure had been written in, if the results of the referendum came very near to that figure it would be difficult for the House to depart from it.
I come now to the fundamental reason why I am opposed and the Government are opposed to the 40 per cent. provision. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) has put the argument. I am seeking only to emphasise what he said. I shall not quote his exact figures, but nobody could dispute them. We could have a result on devolution, as he said—I am not arguing comparability with the Common Market referendum—comparable to the Common Market figures in Scotland, but under the 40 per cent. provision that would mean that it would not go through unless it was carried through the House under the further consultative arrangements. In other words, there could be a substantial majority voting for the devolution proposals but still not attaining the 40 per cent.
If that happened, if we accepted the Bill as it stands now with the 40 per cent. provision, we should be inviting a very serious constitutional crisis. I believe that if that were to occur there would be a serious risk that the result would be such that, when it came back to the House, many would be able to argue that the requirement of the House had not been satisfied and that therefore the House should not allow the devolution measure to go forward, whereas in Scotland it would be held, with some justice,


that such a considerable majority had voted that way that it should go forward. At any rate, there would be a dispute on the matter and, by writing in the figure—I come back to the right hon. Gentleman's case—we would have impaired the nature of that consultative referendum.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is it not the case that by writing this figure in we are emphasising the consultative nature of the referendum? If we have the sort of figures suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), it will be open to the House to reject a repeal of the Bill. But if we have a very small vote on the referendum it will be difficult for my right hon. Friend to lay before the House a motion for the repeal of the Bill—if there is any majority at all.

Mr. Foot: That is the difference between us. I understand that. That is a major part of the argument and is a matter for judgment. In my opinion, it is much more likely that the result will be very much along the lines of the other instance that I was giving. If that were to be the case the House of Commons would have to say that the devolution proposal should go ahead even though the figures were not those originally laid down by the House as being the ones that were required.
On this aspect of the matter there are differences of judgment. It is a hypothetical question in some respects, but everybody has to make up his mind about it. The Government believe that if we leave in the 40 per cent. figure we should be inviting a first-class constitutional crisis of that nature, and on that aspect of the matter I have the full support of the right hon. Gentleman, because in his last speech he emphasised exactly that point. I am happy to agree with him. One of the interesting and fascinating things about the debate is that we can wait and see whether the right hon. Gentleman now agrees with himself. That is partly what the debate is about.
In conclusion, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), who put his case with great skill, force and effectiveness as he always does, is that one of the criticisms that I make of the 40 per cent. figure, which I think should be outlawed on many grounds, is

that it involves counting those who abstain and those who stay away as some part of the referendum. I do not say that it gives people votes in that way, but it gives them some consideration in the result of the poll and it could lead to the constitutional dangers which I have described.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central proposes a figure which does not involve those dangers to the same degree. I think that it involves them to some degree, and I believe that the House, according to the way that the figures turned out, would be in some difficulty there, too. But I fully acknowledge—I do not think that anyone could deny it—that his hurdle is considerably lower than the other one and therefore is a far more tolerable one for those who think that we should not present any special hurdles in this respect but should go forward on the full consultative basis which we had previously set out.
The Government's recommendation is that we should accept the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire. We consider that that is far and away the best method of dealing with this question. We regard it as the clearest and cleanest way of doing it. We believe that it avoids the dangerous constitutional crisis that we foresee if the 40 per cent. is left in. We therefore recommend it strongly to the House.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) put a similar case. Of course, the case has been put from different standpoints by people with differing views on devolution. But I insist again that what we are arguing about, or should be arguing about—whether we are pro-devolution or anti-devolution, in favour of particular clauses in the Bill or against them—is whether, when Parliament eventually puts the Bill upon the statute book and the referendum goes forward under the provisions of the Bill, that will be accepted as fair and reasonable by the nation at large.
In my view, the best way for us to do that is to return to the original provisions in the Bill. If the House rejects that advice, it will be very much wiser then, in my view, for us to have the 33 per cent. rather than the 40 per cent. But overwhelmingly I urge that, if the House


is to protect the constitution of this country and is to protect its supremacy, we now have before us the best way in which to do it.

Mr. Francis Pym: I acknowledge at the outset that the Government certainly wanted to conduct the referendum, so far as it was possible, on an agreed basis. They wanted the least possible degree of controversy. I acknowledge that they accepted an amendment of ours relating to the preamble, although I did not know until tonight that the Lord President had had many other representations from other parts of the House on the same point. I do not think that I was aware of that, but I fully accept it.
I think that the reason why it is proving hard to achieve complete agreement is mainly that the referendum is being introduced as part of the Bill and has not been introduced in a separate Bill which would have enabled the House to debate the principles underlying the referendum. I believe that that is the chief cause of the difficulty.
After a quite long debate on 25th January, the House reached a conclusion, under the guillotine, and as a result of that vote subsection (2) was inserted in Clause 80 as it now appears. In my speech in that debate, as the Lord President rightly said, I expressed reservations about the wisdom of inserting a precise figure. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that I put the matter very fairly. I certainly made the points which he has stressed, and I said also that in making a constitutional change of this magnitude the House would certainly require an overwhelming majority of people to be in favour of it.
I rehearsed the disadvantages and I spoke of the need for an overwhelming majority. I do not complain about it too much, but I think that anyone who reads my speech will come to the conclusion that the Lord President was tonight trying to put just a bit too much weight on a part of it. I think that I made a very balanced speech.
At any rate, I did not vote on the amendment that night because, on the balance of the argument, I thought that I should wait and see what the House decided. I thought that it was evenly balanced, but the House decided the

matter, against the specific advice of the Government. The Minister of State did not make the sort of speech which I made. He said that the proposal was wrong and that the Government were against it. Nevertheless, the House came to that decision.
The next question was what the Government were going to do. We knew from the speech of the Minister of State that they were hostile to 40 per cent. or any amendment containing a similar provision. We read in the Press that it was apparently "totally unacceptable" to the Government. That is a quotation from The Scotsman of 27th January.
There were many stories in the Press about how the Government were to make a major effort to restore the Bill to its original form. When in due course the Business Committee assembled to set out how the time was to be divided on Report and Third Reading, I was not surprised to be confronted by a special motion to ensure that there would be a re-run of part of what is now Clause 80. I resented very much that the re-run was to take place within the allocation of time, but that is a separate issue.
That motion presaged the reports in the Press. The arrangements of the Business Committee that the House accepted obviously presaged a major Government amendment to put the matter right. However, there is no Government amendment on the Order Paper. There is no alternative proposed on the Order Paper. No revised figure or percentage is tabled by the Government. No attempt is made by the Government to reverse the 40 per cent. decision. There is no sign even of a compromise. There is no constructive suggestion, and not one ministerial name is added to one amendment. Therefore, it might be said to be reasonably fair to presume that the Government were prepared to accept the decision. There is no reason to suppose anything else. If Ministers complain now, I say that they should have been straightforward and open at an earlier stage. It seems extraordinary that the Government should now seek to act by the back door, and a camouflaged back door at that. It is a pusillanimous and ignoble attitude to take.
There is a strong case, which I made in my earlier speech on this issue, for


asking the Scots to indicate a decisive "Yes" verdict if they wish the Bill to be enacted. The reason for that is one that I rehearsed in the same speech. It is that this measure would bring about a dramatic and drastic change that does not have broad support in the House or in the country. It would institute a change that for a quite considerable period would be irreversible and, in a sense, immutable. It is hard to define—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: rose—

Mr. Pym: I shall not give way now as I wish to be allowed to put my argument before the House.
I admit that it is hard to define what "decisive support" or "massive support" means. As we know, many countries require two-thirds of those who vote to be in favour of the constitutional change that is put before the country.
We have heard tonight about constitutional changes in trade unions, but there are other examples. We find one in Clause 3, where it is stated that
the members voting in favour of it number not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of the Assembly".
Those are the persons entitled to vote. The principle is already established in the Bill. However, Clause 80 refers not to two-thirds but to 40 per cent. That is by a decision of the House.
We must take note of the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). What would be the effect in Scotland now if that decision were to be reversed? That is a fair point to make. Although I adhere to my reservations—why not?—about the wisdom of an exact figure, after the vote by the whole House and the apparent acceptance of it by the Government, it is surely reasonable for the House to say that the decision should stand. It is the expression of the House of the sort of decisive verdict that would be necessary in the circumstances of the Bill. However, the Government have insisted upon a second run so that the issue can be put to the test again.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On the question of what is reasonable, and the right hon. Gentleman's concern that the people of Scotland should produce an outstanding vote, will he explain why India, with

all its millions, should have used the first-past-the-post system, as did all the other countries which earned their independence, and why, when dealing with the aspirations of the people of Scotland, he is so concerned that there should be an overwhelming vote in favour?

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Pym: I do not feel competent to speak about India. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Until the Lord President spoke a few minutes ago, it was not within the knowledge of the House that the Government had the slightest intention, if they should lose the amendment, to try to substitute 33⅓ per cent. There is nothing on the Order Paper to suggest it, and I do not think that the House was aware of it.
The 33⅓ per cent. has been described by one Labour Member as a backstop. For my part, I feel that in some respects it represents the worst of both worlds. It has the disadvantage of a precise figure and it is pitched at a level which is thought by many to be too insignificant for the importance of the change that is envisaged. That is the trouble with it.
About a week after that vote, I was in Scotland. I was interested to note that no one—no journalist and no one in the television world—raised the matter with me at all. I was expected to be questioned about it, but I was not. The Minister of State looks astonished. That is a truthful statement.
It will be recalled that last year the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) made all kinds of forecasts. He foretold that if the guillotine failed, terrible things would happen in Scotland. They did not. I suggest that what the Lord President said tonight about the consequences of the amendment not being accepted are exaggerated.
I should like to remind the House of the reason for the referendum. The Government were forced to insert that provision, otherwise there would have been no Bill. There would not even have been the Scotland and Wales Bill. It will be recalled that the referendum provision was inserted on Second Reading. In this instance, the referendum has been the justification for some Labour Members supporting the Bill even though they are opposed to it. Therefore, we have come to see it more and more as a


device of expediency to ease the consciences of some Labour Members. But it has tortured them.
It is at least possible that the Government may find themselves forced to accept a referendum on House of Commons terms, for I believe that the vote tonight is essentially a House of Commons matter. If there had been a separate referendum Bill, we should have been able to debate the implications of a referendum and all the issues of constitutional principle.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) referred to the referendum on the Common Market. That referendum was introduced in a separate Bill, and all the principles could have been debated. Of course, we should debate the principles first. My hon. Friend was right about that. If we had had a separate Bill, it would have divided these debates on the referendum from the highly charged political purpose and nature of the Scotland Bill itself.

Mr. Mackintosh: If there had been a separate referendum Bill which established principles for this unfortunate and unparliamentary device, would the right hon. Gentleman then have said that all matters submitted to referendum should require 40 per cent. support in the United Kingdom or wherever the referendum was held?

Mr. Pym: I think it reasonably unlikely that the House of Commons would have passed a referendum Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I think that that is quite possible. How do we know? It was never tried. The mere fact that a referendum is included as an integral part of the Bill automatically carries implications for the future of this House. There are constitutional implications which cannot be avoided by the mere insertion of this clause in the Bill.
I am unrepentant as a critic of the whole manner and style with which the issue of devolution and the Bill has been handled. I am especially critical of the way in which the Bill has been forced and pressurised through the House. It has been a perversion of parliamentary procedure. It has led to the kind of

practice that has been so severely criticised by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). Indeed, it has led to complications and agony over the referendum itself.
The way that the Government have handled the Bill, unfortunately, adds weight to the argument in favour of requiring a decisive referendum result and, in particular, a decisive "Yes" before Parliament can be expected to support implementation of this measure. The verdict of the Committee a couple of weeks ago was that the right expression of that overwhelming, support should be 40 per cent. Tonight, there is another chance for the House to confirm or knock out that conclusion. For those reasons and in these circumstances, I am sure that the House will judge again whether it is right to throw out the amendment.

Mr. Canavan: Can the right hon. Member say why he got his Whips to whip Conservative Members to vote against my amendment tonight when he virtually said in Committee what my amendment says? He said that it was better to allow the House to decide rather than to write something into the Bill. Where was the road to Damascus when he was converted?

Mr. Pym: Exaggeration is a mistake. I made a clear and balanced speech on the last occasion. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is trying to put undue weight on one half of my argument, just as the Leader of the House did.

Mr. Foot: I quoted two passages from the speech of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). I could have quoted several more in the same sense. Can he quote any passage from his speech which indicates his favouring the insertion of 40 per cent. or any other figure in the referendum? Did he not argue that by inserting a figure the consultative basis of the referendum would be injured?

Mr. Pym: The Leader of the House is trying to put everything on the definition of my reasons for saying that a particular figure was unsatisfactory. I also said that an overwhelming majority was necessary. I said that several times. I said that it was difficult to define what that would be. A fortnight ago, hon. Members took


a view on that. Now I am being criticicised for accepting the definition of the Committee. We all have to accept such decisions even if we do not agree with them. That is a reasonable view to take.
My speech was balanced. The Government were passionately against the Committee's decision. There are complications in the change and in the effect that the change will have. But it is reasonable at times to accept a House of Commons decision. Even Governments have to do that.
It is for the House to judge, and in a few minutes' time it will do that. If the Leader of the House has his way, we shall put to the test whether the figure should be 33⅓ per cent. rather than 40 per cent. We must satisfy ourselves that there is an overwhelming degree of support for this measure in Scotland if it is ever to be put into effect. If the House of Commons takes the view that that is the right expression of an overwhelming majority, that is how it should be.

Mr. George Cunningham: Apart from the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), I am only the second Member who has risen to defend the 40 per cent. rule passed by the Committee three weeks ago. If three weeks ago we had passed not 40 per cent. but 33⅓ per cent., all the arguments mounted against 40 per cent. would have been mounted against 33⅓ per cent., and if we had passed 20 per cent. the same arguments would have been mounted.
As the initiator of the 40 per cent. test, I have an obligation resting upon me tonight. I have to satisfy the House that a fair-minded person in good conscience could vote for this proposal believing genuinely that it was the proper way to test the opinion of the people of Scotland on the issue and that it was not properly open to any charge of rigging.
First, let me pick up three points of criticism. I would have hoped that I did not need yet again to put the dead men back in their graves. The dead men are not participating in the number out of which the "Yeses" must get 40 per cent. They never were to be part of that. They were drafted out of it by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann). The clarificatory amendment which we have put on the Amendment Paper is virtually an advertisement to demonstrate this. It is not necessary and it would be better to leave the text as my hon. Friend had it originally, because that text gives the Secretary of State all the discretion he requires to deduct from the numbers on the register his estimate—and, of course, it must be an estimate—of the appropriate number of deaths and, for example, duplications.
This has not been done without our doing our homework. The death rate among the population of the age to go on the register is very static. Over the past few years, it has varied by only 1 per cent. from one year to another. So the dead men argument is not valid.
Secondly, it is said that, if we have this kind of test, the person who stays at home and does not vote has the same effect as a person who goes to the poll and votes "No". That is not the case. What the text ensures is that the person who stays at home and does not vote has that fact taken into account, as my right hon. Friend the Lord President fairly

recognised. But it does not count in the same way as going to the polls. If 500,000 people who would vote "No" stay at home and do not vote, they have no effect upon whether the "Yeses" meet the test, but what they certainly do is to deflate the "No" vote and make the result of the referendum more questionable.
The third specific point is the question of what it is that the referendum determines. It does not decide whether devolution goes ahead. It determines whether the result has been sufficiently inconclusive for it to be right for the precise result when it is known to come back to this House for this House then to determine whether it should go ahead.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, I agree that, however I might vote—and my views on devolution are well enough known—I certainly can visualise results which failed to pass the test, when the Government would therefore be obliged to bring forward a repeal order and lay it before the House but the House would say "We are glad that that had to be done. We think it was right in those circumstances for us to have the repeal order before us, but on balance, in face of political facts, we think that devolution should nevertheless go ahead." The value of doing that, rather than leaving things as they are, is that an advance indication would have been given of the order of the support that is required.
But the case for any such test and for the 40 per cent. figure is basically this. Right from the beginning of the devolution argument, the merits of devolution have not featured strongly in the argument. There are some people who have sloganised and said "If you have an Assembly in Edinburgh, there will be more and better housing and more jobs in Scotland, apart from civil servants", and so on. But there have been very few. Right from the beginning the argument has been that, whatever the merits, there is in Scotland such an irresistible demand for devolution that that substitutes for the case on merit.
Alongside that, there is what I would call the case on demerit. That has only developed and become accepted and appreciated in the House as the debate has proceeded. One must refer in this


connection to the West Lothian anomaly, not to go over the whole ground again, but it is very much related to what we are deciding tonight. At present, English Members vote on Scottish legislation and Scottish Members vote on English legislation. That is accepted because we are all in the same boat. It affects us all in the same way. England sometimes gets Labour legislation because Scotland and Wales vote Labour, and it works the other way round too. We are all in the same situation.
10.30 p.m.
After devolution, that will not be the case. After devolution, Scotland will be able to gain the education policy and housing policy that it wants by electing to power the party it wants in the Edinburgh Assembly. That will not be the case with England. In the case of England, the electors will have to elect their preferred party with a sufficient majority to overcome any contrary majority of the other party deriving from Scotland and Wales. The Lord President's answer to this is that that is a price which the English will just have to pay for Union. I have heard him give that answer.
The dynamics of politics are such that this answer will not be acceptable to any party. It will not be acceptable to the Conservative Party, and the fact that if it were acceptable it would benefit the Labour Party does not mean that it could be sustained over a time. It is one of those things which is so manifestly unfair that it cannot be sustained.
It is not just that Scots Members would be voting on our legislation, but that the Scots and Welsh Labour predominance would be changing the political nature of the English legislation. At that point in the argument there are some muddleheaded people who say that it is all right because the British genius for compromise and muddling through will work out a convention by which the Scots and Welsh Members do not vote on English legislation. There is the solution, it is said. What that does is to replace what I have just described, which would be a politically unacceptable situation, by a situation which is totally impossible. I hope that people will think about that.
Let us have a little history. There have been 10 General Elections since the war, of which Labour has won six. Of the six

General Elections that we have won, three were won only because the Labour predominance in Scotland and Wales overcame what would have been a Conservative majority among English Members. Think about that. That means that in one Parliament out of three, if past form is anything to go on, there would be a British Labour Government—it would be a Labour Government because that would depend on the political complexion of all United Kingdom Members—trying to pass through a Labour Education Bill on which only the English Members could vote—and the majority of English Members in one Parliament out of three, on past form, would be Conservative. That is not a possible situation.
We all know that in the United States there can be a political divide between the Executive and the legislature because that is the nature of the constitution. We cannot introduce that into our system without changing absolutely everything from top to bottom, back to front, side to side. It cannot be done. That is no way out. There is no way out through a convention.
It is a great pity that there were not more hon. Members present on the second last day of the Committee stage. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) will remember that evening. It was a significant evening in the debate. One Member after another, irrespective of their views on devolution, finally recognised that the West Lothian anomaly was not just an oddity but created an impossible situation.
I particularly remember the words that were used—I think that I remember them exactly—by the hon. Member for Inverness on behalf of the Liberal Party. He said "I shall be frank. I do not know the answer to the West Lothian question."
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) said something like this: "If we are not to create an English Parliament to match the Scottish Parliament under this Parliament, England will just have to put up with whatever makeshift arrangements can be cobbled up in this House." The hon. Member nods his head.
Finally, the Minister of State put the cap on it all by saying that there would be one way of getting rid of the problem.


That would be if the Conservative Party could only win half the seats in Scotland, as it did in 1955. When a Labour Minister is forced to see that as a way out of this maze, we all have to recognise that this is an insoluble problem.
In the opinion of the Liberal Party there is one way out of the maze, and it was suggested that evening. The hon. Member for Inverness said that in the Liberals' view the way out was by having a federal State in Britain, so that there would be regional Assemblies in England to match the Scottish Assembly, and everything would be nice and tidy and symmetrical. But I greatly fear that the hon. Member is not taking his thinking on that one stage further, because we would not have to have merely the English regional Assemblies. We would have to have an English national Assembly as well, because we could not have criminal law decided by the regional Assemblies in England.
So the Liberal solution, the Liberal way out of the maze, would be to have a United Kingdom Parliament with a United Kingdom Government, as we have now, an English Parliament with an English Government, and regional legislatures in England with regional Executives. I can only describe that in two words—science fiction. The British public have not begun to contemplate the thought of that.

Mr. Henderson: Nor the Scottish people.

Mr. Cunningham: That was a very good comment from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Henderson: My point to the hon. Gentleman is this. He talked about the British people. I am suggesting to him that the Scottish people have discussed this for a very long time, and we have had enough. But it is not a question of the English versus the Scottish. This has nothing to do with the English people. It is a matter for the Scottish people.

Mr. Cunningham: With great respect, this question has not been faced up to by the English population or the Scottish population. This science fiction scene is one which the Government themselves have not begun to contemplate.
Is there a way out of the maze? There is a very simple way out of it, and the

SNP know it. It is independence for Scotland. Then the difficulties disappear. Why are they in favour of devolution? It is because they know that they will be lighting a fuse. Then they can sit back and the rocket will go off automatically, propelled by the most powerful force in politics—the dynamics of electoral politics—and it would go on to independence or to the kind of arrangement that we have described.
This is where we come to the issue that is before us tonight. The demerits against the Bill are enormous and frightening, and yet all that has been overcome with the trump card. That trump card is "Forget it, because the Scottish people, as a political fact, are so demanding of this that all that has to be swept aside. Never mind the merits, never mind that we are changing everything and setting off the rocket that leads straight to independence. It has to be overcome because of the political fact of an irresistible Scottish demand."
It is not just because we are making a constitutional change. There could be other constitutional changes to which this would not apply. It is because we are making a change which has not been justified upon merit but has been put forward only on the basis of an irresistible popular demand that we are entitled to test that demand more severely than would be proper in another case. Also, we are right to pay some attention to those who do not go and vote.

Mr. Hooley: My hon. Friend is saying, in effect, that a result which produces a 41 per cent. "Yes" will satisfy his conditions but that a 40½ per cent. "No" vote will be more valid than one which produces 39 per cent. "Yes" and 10 per cent. "No".

Mr. Cunningham: I hope I have not said anything so daft.
I was saying that if 50 per cent., let us say, do not go to the poll, that cannot be compatible with there being that irresistible majority in favour of the Bill.
Now we come to the issue before the House—the issue between 33⅓ per cent. and 40 per cent. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) put very fairly the conceptual difference between the two. He


referred to his own as a backstop, and I agree with that, and to mine as something of a hurdle. That is the difference. The 33⅓ per cent. test would catch and stop the most inconclusive result or the most failed result.
Let us say that the result is 34 per cent. "Yes" and 17 per cent. "No"—that is, two to one—which would be a 51 per cent. poll, virtually half the Scottish people not going to the poll. Is that evidence of that irresistible demand in Scotland which would justify us in bringing upon ourselves all the consequences I have described? I do not think so. I do not think that many Members ought to think so. But it would pass the 33ࡩ per cent. test. That is the case against its being 33⅓ per cent.
One could think of results which would even pass the 40 per cent. test but which would be somewhat inconclusive—40 to 10 perhaps, or something like that—but it is not likely. Let us bear in mind, however, that it comes back to this House. We decide only whether it comes back to the House with an even-handed option, because we have a repeal order before us, whereas otherwise all that we have before us is the opportunity to abuse the commencement date by not going ahead, by refusing to declare a commencement date. I think that that is the case for the 40 per cent. rule.
I resent bitterly the charges about my motives, which I think I know more about than does the hon. Member for Inverness. I am prepared to stand before any audience in Scotland, any hostile audience in Scotland, and make this case, and I believe that many in an audience in Scotland who were not political activists would say "Yes, we had not quite seen these consequences for England. We see them now, however, and there is more to this than we previously realized".
That is why any hon. Member can stand with a good conscience, look his critics in the eye and say that in the circumstances it is reasonable for the test to be imposed. More than that, we are not only entitled to have this kind of evidence of irresistible demand, but we are failing in our duty to Britain, Scotland and the areas we represent in England if we do not require that test.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Rifkind: The House has made its views known about the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). The most remarkable thing about this debate is that it has been left to the hon. Member far West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) to move the amendment.
When the House last considered this matter, the Government spoke strongly against the amendment that was carried. On the following day, the Lord President said in the House:
The Government are taking stock of the situation in the light of these amendments and we shall come forward on Report with our own proposals to deal with the matter."—[Official Report, 26th January, 1978; Vol. 942, c. 1605].

Hon. Members: Where are they?

Mr. Rifkind: In the light of that promise, we were entitled to look at the Order Paper to see whether the Government were serious in their opposition. They do not normally leave it to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire to move an amendment on their behalf. We can only come to one assumption—that the Government wish to protect themselves against the second defeat that they expect on this issue. It would have been far more honourable and courageous for the Government must be flattered, too, lookment and given it their full authority, it they really want to see it carried.

Mr. Canavan: It is only natural shyness that prevented me from moving this amendment from the Dispatch Box. I am very pleased that the hon. Member has elevated me to the rank of spokesman for the Government. I am sure that the Government must be flattered too, looking at my previous voting record.
The reason why the amendment is down in my name is simple: it was down on the Order Paper first. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) accuses the Government of not coming forward with their proposals. They have come forward with a firm proposal—to support me for a change.

Mr. Rifkind: It is not for me to appoint the hon. Member as spokesman. The Government themselves have done so by failing to put down their own amendment.
I believe that the amendment should not be accepted by the House because, whatever one's views, it is imperative that there should be the highest possible turnout at the referendum. The worst possible result would be a low turn-out, and there is a powerful case for the inclusion of a minimum. I hope that all those who feel strongly one way or another will go and vote in the referendum.
I was puzzled by the Lord President's argument that the consultative nature of the referendum would be prevented or intimidated if the amendment were not carried. That is a remarkable proposition. The opposite is the case.
If as a result of the referendum there is a narrow majority in favour of the Bill, even on a low turn-out, is it being argued by the Government that the House, without in advance having made any minimum stipulation, could refuse to allow the Bill to be implemented if there were a 50 per cent. turn-out, 26 per cent. in favour and 24 per cent. against? Unless the House said in advance that the minimum requirement was a necessary ingredient of the Bill, it would not be politically practical for the House to do other than allow it to be implemented. That factor must weigh with us when considering the matter.
I talk as one who believes in the principle of devolution, and those of us who have argued for devolution know well that the Bill would have no prospect of getting on the statute book if Members were voting on the matter on its merits. It is a unique constitutional matter that this Parliament is likely to put on the statute book a Bill in which it does not believe. One could go further and say that it is a Bill in which the majority of the British public also do not believe. Therefore, the only argument that is of relevance with regard to the referendum is whether, despite the support of a genuine majority in the House and the genauine majority of the British public, the majority of the Scottish public want devolution and want the Bill.
Many of us on both sides of the House have believed for a long time that there is a majority in Scotland who want devolution. They believe that we should not be frightened of the 40 per cent. requirement. If the latest information poll is

correct, showing that if the referendum were to be held at present 55 per cent. of the Scottish people would vote "Yes", that would vindicate those who have argued for devolution. But if it turns out to be incorrect and we were wrong, and if a majority of people in Scotland—60 per cent.—are either opposed to devolution or so indifferent that they are not even prepared to exercise a single vote on it, I am not ashamed to say that that is an overwhelming case for the Bill not being put on the statute book.
It is a simple fact that the House is being asked to do something it has never done in the past. It is being asked to put a Bill on the statute book simply because the majority in one part of the United Kingdom appear to wish to see a major constitutional change.
I believe that the provision which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury succeeded in having included in the Bill was a reasonable proposition. I do not believe that anybody who is in favour of the principle of devolution need be hostile to it. If the people of Scotland genuinely want devolution and want the Bill, they will vote for it and that will resolve the matter in the best possible manner.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I do not at this stage want to develop some of the long constitutional arguments that have been deployed. I merely wish to examine some of the figures which have most dominated the argument.
The argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. Canavan) can be boiled down to the simple fact that there is no such thing as a consultative referendum. The House will have to take very serious note of whatever the referendum result is. If there is a fairly low poll, it will be difficult for the House to ignore a majority "Yes" vote. When I examined the results the results of similar referendums in different countries, I discovered that the poll in nine out of 12 referendums was of the order of 67 to 70 per cent. That would mean that if there were a fairly even division of votes with a 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. majority for "Yes", the House would have very great difficulty in rejecting the decision.
The Leader of the House suggested that if we put in a 40 per cent. or 33⅓ per


cent. requirement, a constitutional crisis could emerge, but surely that crisis would emerge if there were a small "Yes" majority on a low poll and the House refused to accept the decision.
The 40 per cent. figure is a little high. On a 67 to 70 per cent. poll, which would be typical of referendums, it would be virtually impossible to get the enormous majority for "Yes" which would be required to meet that percentage requirement. An 80 per cent. turn-out would be needed for a small "Yes" majority to meet that requirement.
The compromise figure suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) is sensible and should be accepted by the House. On that basis, a narrow majority on a 67 per cent. poll would be enough to carry the decision and a two-to-one margin would be required on a 50 per cent. poll. Such

results would justify the argument on which the Bill depends—namely, that there is a very great demand for the Bill in Scotland. Those results would mean a convincing "Yes" vote.

I urge the House to reject the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire and the 40 per cent. requirement of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). That is unrealistic in any terms. I urge hon. Members to accept the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central. It provides a figure against which the House can judge the genuineness of the desire for devolution in Scotland.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 298.

Division No. 115]
AYES
[11.00 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Allaun, Frank
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Anderson, Donald
Dormand, J. D.
Hunter, Adam


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunn, James A.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunnett, Jack
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Ashley, Jack
Dykes, Hugh
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex
Janner, Greville


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; scun)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Atkinson, Norman
English, Michael
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
John, Brynmor


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Bates, Alf
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Bean, R. E.
Faulds, Andrew
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Beith, A. J.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Judd, Frank


Boardman H.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kaufman, Gerald


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Kelley, Richard


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Kerr, Russell


Bradley, Tom
Freud, Clement
Kilfedder, James


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Knox, David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
George, Bruce
Lambie, David


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Lamborn, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Ginsburg, David
Lee, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Golding, John
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Gould, Bryan
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Gourlay, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Graham, Ted
Lipton, Marcus


Campbell, Ian
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Litterick, Tom


Carmichael, Neil
Grant, John (Islington C)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grocott, Bruce
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Cartwright, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McCartney, Hugh


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hardy, Peter
MacCormick, Iain


Clemitson, Ivor
Harper, Joseph
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
McElhone, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Maclennan, Robert


Crawford, Douglas
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Crawshaw, Richard
Henderson, Douglas
McNamara, Kevin


Cronin, John
Hicks, Robert
Madden, Max


Cryer, Bob
Hooley, Frank
Magee, Bryan


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hooson, Emlyn
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Davidson, Arthur
Horam, John
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Marshall, Dr, Edmund (Goole)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Deakins, Eric
Huckfield, Les
Maynard, Miss Joan




Meacher, Michael
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Rowlands, Ted
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Sandelson, Neville
Walker, Rt Hon (Worcester)


Miller, Dr. M. S. (E Kilbridge)
Sedgemore, Brian
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mitchell, Austin
Sever, John
Ward, Michael


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Watkins, David


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Watkinson, John


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Watt, Hamish


Moyle, Roland
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Weetch, Ken


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Weitzman, David


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald, King
Sillars, James
Wellbeloved, James


Noble, Mike
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Welsh, Andrew


Oakes, Gordon
Snape, Peter
White, Frank R. (Bury)


O'Halloran, Michael
Stallard, A. W.
White, James (Pollok)


Orbach, Maurice
Steel, Rt Hon David
Whitehead, Phillip


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Whitelock, William


Owem, Rt Hon Dr David
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wigley, Dafydd


Padley, Walter
Stott, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Park, George
Strang, Gavin
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch' ch)


Parry, Robert
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Pavitt, Laurie
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Dafydd, (Merioneth)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E)


Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, Rt Hon Harols (Huyton)


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Woodall, Alec


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thompson, George
Woof, Robert


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thorne, Stan (Preston, South)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Roderick, Caerwyn
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Tierney, Sydney



Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Tinn, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roper, John
Tomlinson, John
Mr. Dennis Canavan and


Rose, Paul B.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Mr. John P. Mackintosh.


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Costain, A. P.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Aitken, Jonathan
Cowans, Harry
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Alison, Michael
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Critchley, Julian
Grieve, Percy


Arnold, Tom
Crowder, F. P.
Griffiths, Eldon


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Grist, Ian


Awdry, Daniel
Dalyell, Tam
Grylls, Michael


Baker, Kenneth
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Banks, Robert
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Kuntsford)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bell, Ronald
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hannam, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Dodsworth Geoffrey
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Benyon, W.
Doig, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Berry, Hon Anthony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Haselhurst, Alan


Biffen, John
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Drayson, Burnaby
Hayhoe, Barney


Blaker, Peter
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Body, Richard
Dunlop, John
Heffer, Eric S.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Durant, Tony
Heseltine, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Higgins, Terence L.


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Emery, Peter
Hodgson, Robin


Bottomley, Peter
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Holland, Philip


Bowden A (Brighton, Kemptown)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Hordern, Peter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Eyre, Reginald
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bradford, Rev Robert
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Howell, David (Guildford)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brittan, Leon
Farr, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brooke, Peter
Fell, Anthony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Brotherton, Michael
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hurd, Douglas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bryan, Sir Paul
Flannery, Martin
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Buchanan, Richard
Flectcher, Alex (Edinbury N)
James, David


Buck, Anthony
Flectcher-Cooke, Charles
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Budgen, Nick
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jessel, Toby


Bulmer, Esmond
Forman, Nigel
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Forrseter, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Carlisle, Mark
Fowler, Norman (Sutton, C'f'd')
Jopling, Michael


Carson, John
Fox, Marcus
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Channon, Paul
Fry, Peter
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Churchill, W. S.
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Kimball, Marcus


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Garden, Edward (S Fylde)
King, Evelyn (South Dorest)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
King, Tom (Bridwater)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Kinnock, Neil


Clegg, Walter
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Cockcroft, John
Goodhart, Philip
Knight, Mrs Jill


Cohen, Stanley
Goodhew, Victor
Lamond, James


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Goodlad, Alastair
Lamond, Norman


Cope, John
Gorst, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John







Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Neave, Airey
Shepherd, Colin


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Nelson, Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Neubert, Michael
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Lawson, Nigel
Newens, Stanley
Silvester, Fred


Leadbitter, Ted
Newton, Tony
Sims, Roger


Le Marchant, Spencer
Nott, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ogden, Eric
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Onslow, Cranley
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Lloyd, Ian
Ovenden, John
Spearing, Nigel


Loveridge, John
Page, John (Harrow West)
Speed, Keith


Luce, Richard
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Sproat, Iain


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Paisley, Rev Ian
Stainton, Keith


McCrindle, Robert
Palmer, Arthur
Stanbrook, Ivor


McCusker, H.
Parker, John
Stanley, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Parkinson, Cecil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


MacGregor, John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Stoddart, David


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Percival, Ian
Stokes, John


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stradling Thomas, J.


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Tapsell, Peter


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Madel, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tebbit, Norman


Marten, Neil
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mates, Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Mather, Carol
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Maude, Angus
Rathbone, Tim
Townsend, Cyril d.


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Trotter, Neville


Mawby, Ray
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
van Strubebzee, W. R.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Mayhew, Patrick
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Viggers, Peter


Mandelson, John
Rhodes, James, R.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wakeham, John


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mills, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian
Walters, Dennis


Miscampbell, Norman
Rifkind, Malcolm
Warren, Kenneth


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Weatherill, Bernard


Moate, Roger
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wells, John


Molloy, William
Robert, Why (Conway)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Molyneaux, James
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wiggin, Jerry


Monro, Hector
Robgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Winterton, Nicholas


Montgomery, Fergus
Rooker, J. W.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Moonman, Eric
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rost, Peter (SE Derdyshire)
Younger, Hon George


Morgan, Geraint
Royle, Sir Anthony



Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Sainsbury, Tim
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Mr. Leslie Spriggs and


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. George Gardiner.


Mudd, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker: It is now my duty under paragraph 9(1)(b) of the allocation of time order to put the Question on Government amendments and any amendments standing on the Amendment Paper in the name of any hon. Member if moved by a member of the Government. I understand that the Government now wish to move Amendment No. 73.

It being after Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the

Order [16th November] and the Resolution yesterday, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.

Amendment proposed: No. 73, in page 38, line 17, leave out '40 per cent.' and insert 'one in three'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 285.

Division No. 116]
AYES
[11.15 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Belth, A. J.
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Armstrong, Ernest,
Bennett, Andrew (Stockprot N)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Ashley, Jack
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Buchan, Norman


Aston, Joe
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Buchanan, Richard


Atkinson, Norman
Boardman, H.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Booth, Rt, Hon Albert
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)


Bates, Alf
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Bean, R. E.
Bradley, Tom
Campbell, Ian




Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Radice, Giles


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Robert, Gwilym (Cannock)


Clemitson, Ivor
Janner, Greville
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Coleman, Donald
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roper, John


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
John, Brynmor
Rose, Paul B.


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rowlands, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sandelson, Neville


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sedgemore, Brian


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sever, John


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Judd, Frank
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Deakins, Eric
Knox, David
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Dempsey, James
Lamborn, Harry
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dormand, J. D.
Lee, John
Snape, Peter


Dunn, James A.
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Stallard, A. W.


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Litterick, Tom
Stott, Roger


English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Strang, Gavin


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McCartney, Hugh
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Faulds, Andrew
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Defydd (Merioneth)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
MacFarquhar Roderick
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle S)


Flannery, Martin
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Forrester, John
McNamara, Kevin
Tierney, Sydney


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Madden, Max
Tinn, James


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Magee, Bryan
Tomlinson, John


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mallallieu, J. P. W.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Freud, Clement
Marks, Kenneth
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Gilbert, Dr John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ginsburg, David
Maynard, Miss Joan
Ward, Michael


Golding, John
Meacher, Michael
Watkins, David


Gould, Bryan
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Weetch, Ken


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Weitzman, David


Graham, Ted
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wellbeloved, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, Austin
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
White, James (Pollok)


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitehead, Phillip


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Whitlock, William


Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland
Wigley, Dafydd


Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch' ch)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Noble, Mike
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Health, Rt Hon Edward
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Hicks, Robert
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hooley, Frank
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Woodall, Alec


Hooson, Emlyn
Padley, Walter
Woof, Robert


Horam, John
Park, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Parker, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Parry, Robert



Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Pavitt, Laurie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Huckfield, Les
Pendry, Tom
Mr. Robin Cook and


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Penhaligon, David
Mr. John Watkinson.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Price, William (Rugby)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bradford, Rev Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Benyon, W.
Braine, Sir Bernard


Alison, Michael
Berry, Hon Anthony
Brittan, Leon


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Biffen, John
Brooke, Peter


Arnold, Tom
Biggs-Davison, John
Brotherton, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Blaker, Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Body, Richard
Bryan, Sir Paul


Awdry, Daniel
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Buck, Antony


Baker, Kenneth
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Budgen, Nick


Banks, Robert
Bottomley, Peter
Buimer, Esmond


Bell, Ronald
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Carlisle, Mark







Carson, John
Hurd, Douglas
Page, Richard (Workington)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Paisley, Rev Ian


Channon, Paul
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Palmer, Arthur


Churchill, W. S.
James, David
Parkinson, Cecil


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby
Percival, Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Cockroft, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Cohen, Stanley
Jopling, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Cope, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Costain, A. P.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cowans, Harry
Kimball, Marcus
Prior, Rt Hon James


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
King, Evelyn (Sough Dorset)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Critchley, Julian
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rathbone, Tim


Crowder, F. P.
Kinnock, Neil
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Dalyell, Tam
Knight, Mrs Jill
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lamond, James
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamont, Norman
Rhodes James, R.


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Langford,-Holt, Sir John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Dodsworth Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Ridsdale, Julian


Doig, Peter
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lawson, Nigel
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Drayson, Burnaby
Leadbitter, Ted
Robinson, Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dunlop, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rooker, J. W.


Durant, Tony
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lloyd, Ian
Royle, Sir Anthony


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Loveridge, John
Sainsbury, Tim


Eyre, Reginald
Luce, Richard
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lyon, Alexandr (York)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fairgrieve, Russell
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Farr, John
McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, colin


Fell, Anthony
McCusker, H.
Shersby, Michael


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mackay, Andrew (Stechford)
Sims, Roger


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, M. (New Bury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spearing, Nigel


Fox, Marcus
Marten, Neil
Speed, Keith


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol
Sproat, Iain


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Maude, Angus
Stainton, Keith


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stanbrook, Ivor


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mawby, Ray
Stanley, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mayhew, Patrick
Stoddart, David


Goodhart, Philip
Mendelson, John
Stokes, John


Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Goodlad, Alastair
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Tapsell, Peter


Gorst, John
Mills, Peter
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tebbit, Norman


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Grieve, Percy
Molloy, William
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Griffiths, Eldon
Molyneaux, James
Townsend, Cyril D.


Grist, Ian
Monro, Hector
Trotter, Neville


Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moonman, Eric
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Viggers, Peter


Hampson, Dr Keith
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Hannam, John
Morgan, Geraint
Wakeham, John


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Walters, Dennis


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Warren, Kenneth


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mudd, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Hayhoe, Barney
Neave, Airey
Wells, John


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Nelson, Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Heffer, Eric S.
Neubert, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Heseltine, Michael
Newens, Stanley
Winterton, Nicholas


Higgins, Terence L.
Newton, Tony
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hodgson, Robin
Nott, John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Holland, Philip
Ogden, Eric
Younger, Hon George


Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley



Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howell, David (Guildford)
Ovenden, John
Mr. George Gardiner and


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Mr. Leslie Spriggs.


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker: The remaining Government amendments are Nos. 83 to 86, 88, 90, 91, 93, 106, 107 and 109 to 111. If there is no objection, I propose to put them en bloc.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF ASSEMBLY

Amendment No. 83 made: In page 42, line 27, at end insert
'; but nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the further amendment by a Scottish Assembly Act of any of the enactments amended by paragraphs 3 to 7, 19, 25, 27, 28, 34, 35 and 45A of Schedule 16 to this Act'.—[Mr. Foot.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

STATUTORY POWERS EXERCISABLE WITH CONCURRENCE OF SUBJECT TO CONSENT OR APPROVAL OF A MINISTER OF THE CROWN.

Amendments made: No. 84, in page 44, line 40, leave out from 'and 10' to end of line 42.

No. 85, in page 44, leave out lines 43 to 50 and insert—


'The Superannuation Act 1972, section 24.
Provision for or in respect of persons in relation to whom the Firemen's Pension Scheme, or regulations under section 7 or 10 of the Act, may be made.'.—[Mr. Foot.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 5

ENACTMENTS CONFERRING POWERS EXERCISABLE CONCURRENTLY

Amendment No. 86 made: in page 45, line 35, at end insert 'and (3)(f).'—[Mr. Foot.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 10

MATTERS WITHIN LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF ASSEMBLY, AND WITHIN POWERS OF SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE.

Amendments made: No. 88, in page 48, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert—
'Provision of public passenger and freight transport services within Scotland. Payment of subsidies to operators of such services within Scotland'.

No. 90, in page 51, line 8, at end insert—
'7A. Provision of air services, provision of freight transport services by road (other than by the Scottish Transport Group or any body directly or indirectly replacing it) and provision of railway services by the British Railways Board. Payment, in respect of public freight services, of subsidies—

(a) to operators (other than the Scottish Transport Group or any body directly or indirectly replacing it) of such services by road;
(b) to operators (other than those providing services to or from places in the Highlands and Islands) of such services by air; and
(c) to operators of such services by rail.'.

No. 91, in page 54, line 15, leave out '27' and insert '31'.

No. 93, in page 59, line 48, at end insert—
'() the matters dealt with in section 26(1)(a) are included so far as relates to passenger services within Scotland and passenger services by road outside Scotland;'.—[Mr. Foot.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 16

AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS

Amendments made: No. 106, in page 83, line 1, leave out from 'the' to 'a' in line 5 and insert—
'areas mentioned in paragraph 17(2) of Schedule 16 to the Scotland Act 1978'.

No. 107, in page 83, line 10 at end insert—
'(2) The areas referred to in the definition set out in sub-paragraph (1) above are, subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the Highland Region, the islands areas of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles and the district of Argyll and Bute other than the former burgh of Rothesay and the former district of Bute.
(3) A Scottish Secretary may by order made by statutory instrument vary the description of any area in sub-paragraph (2) above or delete from that sub-paragraph any area for the time being specified in it or add any area to those so specified.
(4) An order made under sub-paragraph (3) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Assembly.'.

No. 109, in page 86, line 14, at end insert—

'THE FINANCE ACT 1972

33. In section 19(4) of the Finance Act 1972 after the words "Minister of the Crown" there shall be inserted the words "or of a Scottish Secretary".'.

No. 110, in page 88, line 3, at end insert—

'THE FINANCE ACT 1975

43. In paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975 after the entry beginning "Any Government department" there shall be inserted the words "A Scottish Secretary".'.

No. 111, in page 88, line 43, at end insert—

'THE LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1976

45A. In section 138(1) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:
(aa) trafficking in alcoholic liquor on premises used for the purposes of the Scottish Assembly while they are so used or, under the authority of the Assembly, at other times."'.—[Mr. Foot.]

Bill to be read the Third time tomorrow.

VETERINARY DRUGS (SUPPLY)

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Medicines (Exemptions from Restrictions on the Retail Sale or Supply of Veterinary Drugs) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 2167), dated 20th December 1977, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th January, be annulled.
At the beginning of this debate I must declare my interest as a farmer and purchaser of veterinary products from time to time. The purpose of the Prayer, as I must make clear at the beginning, is not to vote against the order; indeed, basically we welcome it. But as there are a number of important issues that arise from it we felt that it would be helpful if at this moment the House could have an opportunity of discussing the implication of the changes in the rules in respect of the sale of many veterinary drugs.
The order means that exemptions will be given from control for certain veterinary products. Particularly, it means that there will be a continuation of what is known as a "farmer's list" of drugs which can be supplied by merchants. We welcome both these points. However, certain questions arise. We would like the Minister to explain what possible future developments might take place with regard to the sale of these veterinary drugs.
This order is one of the worst drafted orders it has ever been my misfortune to look at. Anyone looking at Article 3 (1) would find it impossible, if he was not a lawyer—and I am not—to understand it on one reading. One hears often of a double negative. I believe that somewhere in there is a triple negative I know that it is difficult for Ministers to deal with these things because of pressure of work, but I wish that they would give instructions to the effect that orders drafted in this extremely complicated and obtuse way should be sifted before being presented to the House.
Second, I want to ask the Government why certain products have been left off the list of exemptions which we see in the schedules. We believe, and we are backed in this by a number of outside bodies, including the NFU, the pharmacists and a number of traders in veterinary medicines, that there are a number of products which have been left out of the schedules which might well have been put into them. The implication of other drugs being put into the schedules is that it would be possible for farmers to obtain those drugs without having a prescription from a veterinary surgeon.
For some peculiar reason which I do not understand, calcium borogluconate—which is a well-known treatment for milk fever and grass staggers—can be sold without a prescription when it is on its own, but when it is involved with magnesium and other compounds it has to be sold on a prescription-only basis. That is difficult to understand.
There has been a good deal of opposition to this move from the bodies I have mentioned. It is important to farmers that an immediate supply of that product should be available. Those who have seen its dramatic and fast effects on an animal suffering from milk fever do not need to be told how important it is that farmers should have it readily and speedily at hand.
The second group of products I wish to inquire about are the multi-vitamin injections, products which have been used for a long time in normal agricultural practice and which, as far as I am aware, have never given rise to problems. There are also copper injections, which, again, are part of routine practice on some farms, including my own, where conditions such as swayback are well known.


It seems strange that these products cannot be exempted and placed on the farmer's list. Is there any history to show that the relatively free availability of these drugs has caused problems? Why have they been left off the list of exemptions? It seems strange that they should have been left off.
I hope that the Minister recognises that these drugs are often neeeded quickly. There is a danger if there is delay in making them available. If a farmer has to rush off to get a vet to come to the farm and issue a prescription, and if he then has to go to a pharmacist or to a vet's surgery in order to get the products prescribed, delay will be caused, and also extra cost. The farmer will have to pay the fee which the vet would charge to come to the farm to inspect the animal, and in very many cases all farmers know that treatment is required.
I hope very much that the products I have mentioned, and maybe some others, can be taken off the prescription-only list. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security—I am glad to see him on the Treasury Bench—gave a hint recently that certain injections might be exempted in the future. I hope that when the Parliamentary secretary replies he will be able to give us good news that another order will be introduced exempting rather more of the types of injections to which I have referred.
The matter of cost and availability brings me to another point. There is no doubt that the extension of the prescription-only list will mean that the turnover of certain veterinary products by veterinary surgeons will increase. At the same time, as more products go on to the prescription-only list, it must be equally certain that the turnover of pharmacies will fall off in consequence of these products being channelled through the hands of the vets.
It is a fact that the vets derive considerable income from the sale of veterinary products. I think that that is perfectly reasonable and I am not for a moment arguing against it. In my experience, it is also a fact that vets do not very often write out prescriptions. Much more often they supply prescriptions themselves there and then, out of the back of the car, or make them available in the surgery for later collection.
This is the background to the situation which has arisen in consequence of the order. A good deal of concern is being caused among pharmasists up and down the country. It is a particularly serious problem in the rural areas, where many pharmacies are already closing down.
I draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 16, which now has attached to it the names of no fewer than 180 right hon. and hon. Members who have expressed anxiety about the number of pharmacies closing down. As I have said, it is particularly dramatic in the rural areas, and there is no doubt that the implications of the order will mean that a number of pharmacies will find life more difficult as more products go on to the prescription-only list and as the turnover is likely to go towards the vets.
Naturally, pharmacists' fears would be very much reduced if vets became much more ready to sign prescriptions, but even if that trend were to take place it is still true to say that pharmacists' turnover is likely to fall as result of the order.
I do not want in any way to drive a wedge between the vets and the pharmacists. Indeed, I want to try to smooth the waters in these matters. I hope that in rural areas both vets and pharmacists will be able to get together, through their associations, to try to come to some agreement on the extent to which vets will take on themselves the supply of many of the products which are now becoming prescription-only. The implications in rural areas for the turnover and the livelihood of pharmacists are really quite serious.
I now turn to the position of the small traders, who perform a very valuable service, particularly in our upland areas. These are the men who tour farms in vans, selling sheep dips and other products in a way which has become traditional. It is not in any way our intention or desire to promote the interests of some of the so-called cowboys who come round one day and are never seen again. In the North Pennines area, however, there are many small business men who perform an extremely valuable service in this way, which has become traditional. I very much hope that they will not be pushed out as a result of the order and the new regulations.
I gather from the order that impulse sales will be banned and that in future these merchants will have to take orders and deliver subsequently from their vans. I want to register our alarm at the implications. These people should be thought about. I hope that the Minister is prepared to keep the position of these small traders under review and that, if there are signs that many of them are being driven out, amending regulations will be brought in to try to safeguard their position. Whether it could be a form of order allowing them to carry on their business in some simple way I do not know, but I want an undertaking that the hon. Gentleman is sympathetic to these traditional merchants and will be prepared to look sympathetically at their case.
I want to deal with a number of other matters which lie in the future. I gather from talking to people who have been dealing with the order that there is a temporary flavour about it. In the eyes of some, there are likely to be more regulations to follow. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be careful to avoid, if he can, a situation in which the number of drugs on prescription only will be extended. We believe that it would be better if the scope of the exemptions was enlarged in the way I have described.
We understand that with any medicine, whether a human medicine or a veterinary medicine, there is a residual chance of danger if misuse occurs, but we believe that it is not practical to seek to eliminate every possible residual danger. That could be done only at the price of reduced welfare of animals and at very much increased cost to those who keep them.
I understand that the Veterinary Products Committee is reviewing the lists to see wheher more products should become prescription only. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not agree to that without very strong reasons being provided to justify such a change. I hope he will give that undertaking.
The pharmacists have expressed some concern at the composition of the Veterinary Products Committee. The British Distributors of Animal Medicines Association has told us that no less than 80 per cent. of the committee is made up of veterinary surgeons. The pharmacists, realising that the more products that become prescription only the more products are likely to go away from the pharmacists

and over to the vets themselves, not unnaturally have some fears. They have, I understand, asked the Government whether the committee could be supplemented by two practising agricultural and veterinary pharmacists. How are the structure and balance of the committee at present established?
I understand that there are no practising veterinary pharmacists on the committee. It would be well worth the Parliamentary Secretary's while to consider putting someone with these qualifications on the committee. I hope that he will look at this proposal sympathetically.
There is a danger inherent in the order of a rift developing between the vets and the pharmacists. I hope that nothing I have said will exacerbate a deterioration in their relationships. The Parliamentary Secretary has the job of smoothing things out as best he can between the two groups which provide such an excellent service in our rural areas. It is important that they should continue to prosper side by side, and the extent to which they do so depends on how the Parliamentary Secretary uses his good offices to smooth out difficulties arising out of the order.
These matters are causing concern. We shall be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to these points.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has made it clear that he is asking for information and has no intention of defeating the order. He undertook the generous task of trying to prevent any rift between the pharmacists and vets. That is a noble endeavour. Blessed are the peacemakers. However, he is taking a risk that he who intervenes will get clobbered from both sides.
The hon. Member gave a list of products that he wanted exempted. I wonder whether this includes dapsone Sulphacillin, used in the treatment of mastitis.
I declare an interest in that I am the Member for Liverpool, West Derby, and I have received invitations to talk about foot rot from people who believed that I was the Member for West Derbyshire. I once accepted one of these invitations, and we had an interesting evening when it was found that I was not the Member


for that constituency. In my constituency, which is very small, I have three farms that used to belong to Lord Sefton. They are among the best farms for livestock and arable land in Lancashire. My other interest is that I am parliamentary adviser to the Pharmaceutical Society.
The hon. Member for Westmorland has put the case, but I do not know whether the Pharmaceutical Society would agree entirely about the possible differences occurring in respect of some of their members if these products are obtained in one way as opposed to another. There may be difficulties. Certainly the Society would agree that the first concern is safety, as would both the National Farmers' Union and the vets.
After the recommendation from the Medicines Commission there has to be a three-year period to arrange the adjustment. One person involved in the NFU has referred to this order as the equivalent of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Other things may happen in a short period to make this irrelevant or immaterial. It is not the beginning of the end, other things are likely to happen.
If there is a committee, a panel, or a group of people who will take major decisions, and if the composition of that committee is almost wholly from one section of the people involved and not representative of the whole area, this will create difficulties. If the committee included someone with pharmaceutical knowledge, as well as vets and farmers, this would help.
The order is complicated, but it will not exist for ever. Objections and suggestions have been made, and the Department's officers have tried to be as helpful as they can. We are agreed on both sides of the House that we want them to be a little more helpful.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I hope that I shall be brief, but this is an important matter.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said, it is important that the order should go through this evening. There will be certain legislation effect if it does not go through. In other words, the situation will be chaotic if we did not pass this order.

However, there are a number of matters that need covering, and complaint need to be registered with the Minister so that in his reply he can give certain assurances and promise certain changes.
I wish to declare an interest, not as a farmer, but because the chief executive of the organisation mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland, the British Distributors of Animal Medicines Association Limited, is a constituent of mine, and indeed a very good friend of mine. Therefore, I have a duty to put forward on behalf of this organisation a number of matters to the Minister.
The subject matter of complaint is paragraph 11 of a document that was issued or prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food entitled MAL51, issued in January of this year, under the Medicines Act 1968, and headed
Notes on retail sale of certain veterinary medicines to farmers and other commercial keepers of animals,
and a document, MAL52, issued in January 1978 which is entitled
Notes on retail sale of certain veterinary medicines to commercial manufacturers of animal feedingstuffs".
The latter document is, in my view, the major area of complaint. As I understand it, it gives permission to people to dispense residual stocks of POM products if they get veterinary prescriptions. Surely this cannot be correct. I hope that the Minister will examine the position carefully before he replies.
I shall not go into the chronological situation in detail or all the matters that have arisen over a period of years, but the general purpose of the Medicines Act 1968 was to bring the dispensing and sale of drugs, including veterinary drugs, under stricter control. It required that POM drugs—that is, drugs to be administered under the care or direction of a doctor, dentist or veterinary surgeon—should be issued by them or dispensed by a pharmacy against one of their prescriptions. This is covered by Section 52 of the 1968 Act and is also covered in the second and third paragraphs of MAL 51.
The second main purpose of the Act was to create a general sales list of what I can only describe as innocuous products that could be left to the layman


to use himself. All other pharmaceutical products were to be sold by pharmacies only.
Therefore, POM products are in professional hands or pharmacies, and the latter can also stock and sell general sales list products and pharmacy-only lines. Some exceptions were made to cover the sales of small packs of human drugs, such as aspirin, in supermarkets and so on and also to cover the sales of certain mass animal treatments which hitherto had been sold via the agricultural merchant as well as pharmacies. I wish to pay tribute to the splendid service given in many parts of the country by agricultural merchants who provide a very valuable service to the farmer. The law requires that people who wish to sell items listed in Statutory Instrument No. 2167 should register with the Pharmaceutical Society. Those wishing to sell only general sales list products list their names with the local authority. The debate concerns giving a period of grace of six months to people to dispose of stocks of products which have been reclassified. That fact is worth emphasising.
The second part of paragraph 11 of the document to which I have referred is right and must stand. It is important that the six-month deferment should be given. However, the second part of the paragraph permits non-pharmacists to dispense veterinary surgeons' prescriptions in order to dispose of residual stocks. That is an appallingly bad piece of legislation which goes against the whole objective of the 1968 Act.
Let us examine briefly the consequences of non-pharmacists dispensing veterinary surgeons' prescriptions if they have the stocks to do so. Not only will this include non-pharmacist retailers who list their names with the Pharmaceutical Society; it will allow GSL sellers to dispense. No one knows who these people are, because local authorities are not required to publish their names so the Pharmaceutical Society cannot, for practical purposes, carry out its statutory duties. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of this dangerous situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland referred to bad drafting of the legislation in another area. It has been badly drafted and there are a number of areas where dangers could arise. It is

worth reminding the Parliamentary Secretary that elsewhere the enforcement branch of his Ministry, in co-operation with other bodies, is undertaking a campaign—only partially successful, I regret to say—to try to stop the illegal sales of antibiotics for use on animals destined for human consumption. The organisation to which I have referred is privileged to have taken much of the lead in this campaign.
We have the ludicrous situation of one department in the Ministry trying desperately to stop illegal sales while another department is busily presenting the cowboys—to use the title they are given in the trade—with a most beautiful way of continuing to break the law. Of course, the law does not require GSL sellers to keep a record, of their dispensing.
These are technical points, but they are important. Neither is it possible for the Government to say that it will be difficult for the deliberately illegal seller to obtain POM products in future. This type of person always has a cover story to present to any official inquiry. He will say something like "I am holding this for a vet's prescription."
What is to be done? The present difficulties were caused by the failure of the parent Act to cover sales of veterinary products to non-pharmaceutical outlets. That should be put right by a short amending Bill or some other form of parliamentary procedure about which the Parliamentary Secretary no doubt knows more than I.
As for the consent for non-pharmacists to dispense, the Minister should instruct the Ministry to issue yet another amendment to S.I. No. 2127 cancelling forthwith consent for anyone other than veterinary surgeons or pharmacists to dispense the animal health and veterinary drugs set out in the order.
The professional and trade associations will continue their unremitting pressure to make sure that the requests they have so far made are carried out and ensure that suitable publicity is accorded when unfortunate results follow in the wake of pretty supid errors by the drafters of one of the worst set of Statutory Instruments ever issued. This is a common criticism widely voiced in the industry.
Another unfortunate result of the proposed deferment of S.I. No. 2127 is that


the manufacturer and trader think that all of the issued nine Statutory Instruments are postponed where action is concerned until 1st August next. This is not correct, and I hope that the Minister will highlight that in his reply.
One can scarcely blame the trade, the veterinary profession or the veterinary manufacturer for this state of affairs since the Press release which have been issued to date have been issued, basically, not by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but by the Department represented on the Front Bench tonight by the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr Deakins), the Department of Health and Social Security. Very few of the animal health interests are on the DHSS mailing lists, and the DHSS does not know their addresses, either. Inevitably, therefore, confusion has arisen, and I hope that the Minister will admit that.
There is some doubt as to whether even the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is aware of recent legislation or of the import of the matters under debate tonight. Certainly, the veterinarians in the field know very little about it.
I realise that I have highlighted a number of matters which some may consider to be of only minor importance, but when we are debating an order in the House at least the order should be properly and correctly drafted. Undoubtedly this order is not.
In conclusion, I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland. He has put to the Minister the views strongly held in agriculture about this order. I hope that the Minister will be sensitive on these matters and that the changes or assurances for which I have asked will be given, since otherwise the House is wasting its time.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I am sorry that the Minister has given in to bogus commercial pressure to make this order. To say that there has not been time to know what is happening and know what must be done is to ignore the facts of the case. The first consultations on this matter occurred as long ago as 23rd August 1973. There have been 61 meetings and minutes with the Ministry of Agriculture and with the various interested bodies, culminating in a reply from

the Ministry as long ago as 1st June 1976 saying that the draft Statutory Instruments would be implemented shortly.
The trade has had plenty of time. We all know what happens when there is a standstill such as this. Everyone starts hoarding drugs which people think will be harder to get in the future. But these drugs are being withdrawn and put on prescription-only lists for good reasons.
When the time came for various sheep dips to be withdrawn—they should have been withdrawn immediately—because warning was given that various dips containing dieldrin were to be withdrawn, people hoarded and built up stocks because they thought that they were to be deprived of something better than the product which they would be allowed to have. It took two years to get rid of all the dieldrin sheep dips in this country because of the hoarding. I hope that the Minister is aware of the danger created by the making of this order.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) is wrong. We cannot have safety and convenience when we are dealing with such drugs as these. The object of the Medicines Act and of the order made under it is to ensure the safety, quality and efficiency of veterinary treatment, and the safety must be total in such a case as this. We must think of safety for the animal and safety for the handler, but above all we must bear in mind—this is becoming more and more important and disturbing—safety for the consumer of products which have been treated with these drugs. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) talked about shifting the deckchairs on the Titanic. That is all that we are doing tonight. Let us be realistic. I hope that we shall see many more products taken off the farmers' list—there is only a temporary breathing space—and put on the prescription-only list.
I give two examples on which I hope that the Minister will not give way. I give only two examples, although if we go through the list there are many more that could be presented to the House. For instance, the warble fly dressing is at present on the farmers' list. It contains organo-phosphorus, which is one of the most dangerous chemicals that we want to get rid of in the countryside today.


It is highly toxic and should not be on the farmers' list. It should go on the prescription-only list as soon as the Minister can act.
My second example is a dangerous vaccine for Orf that is at present handled by farmers. It is a live vaccine that is extremely dangerous to the farm labourer or shepherd who uses it. It should be on the prescription-only list. So often people get the Orf vaccine without a veterinarian's visit. In fact, they do not know whether they are handling it.
In agriculture we want to see the proper growth of preventive veterinary medicine. We cannot afford to have the vet on the farm only when things have gone wrong. The vet should be a regular consultant. He should keep a check on the farm and be in regular attendance. If things go wrong, it is too late for him to do very much.
I am sorry that the Minister has bowed to bogus commercial pressure. I hope that in reply he will make it clear that he intends to eneforce all the provisions of the Act. The hon. Gentleman will have my support and the support of many others if he decides to take many more products off the farmers' list and place them on the prescription-only list. That is what the general public will want him to do.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I must declare an interest. I am a farmer. Therefore, I use these products. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball)—it probably slipped his mind—would declare an interest.
I must take a completely different view from my hon. Friend. I think that most farmers would do so. I much dislike the way in which we are moving in this area. There is a matter of principle at stake. I do not believe that farmers are yokels who cannot handle drugs. It is not right to suggest that they do not understand these matters. On the whole, the modern farmer is very well trained. He understands how to use drugs. Certainly most of my farm workers and other farm workers with whom I deal know exactly how to deal with drugs. They know how to look after their animals in a responsible manner.
I am sorry to see that there are more and more restrictions. I do not normally disagree with my hon. Friend, but I must do so on this occasion. I believe that there are many vets who are only too pleased to co-operate with farmers, instruct them and allow them to use drugs, and not only those that are obtained from vets.

Mr. Kimball: I should have made it clear that I am a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons appointed by the Privy Council. I was speaking with that interest.

Mr. Mills: I knew that my hon. Friend was doing so.
I must confess that in years gone by I have used many drugs that have been given to me by vets and from other sources.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: My hon. Friend looks well on it.

Mr. Mills: I did so because the vets felt that I was a responsible person who could handle such matters. I dislike the restrictions that are being introduced. I repeat that farmers are responsible people, as are farm workers.
I reiterate the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), although I think that he was especially kind tonight. I should have been that much stronger if I had been in his place. I say that as a practising farmer. However, I suppose that being on the Front Bench makes one very responsible. My hon. Friend was right to refer to the excellent service that the travelling salesmen have given to the farming community over the years. We are not talking about the fly-by-nights—the cowboys. If any of those people come on to my farm, they are soon rooted out. We do not want those kind of people on the farm. But we need the travelling salesmen. We in the South-West of England have many. I know three in my constituency who have been doing the job for 15 to 20 years. They have provided an excellent service by bringing to the farmer what he needs without any trouble. There has been proper liaison, friendship and advice and encouragement. It will be a sad day if we see the end of those gentlemen.

Mr. Ogden: I make no criticism of the hon. Gentleman's constituents or of those who come to his farm, but does he agree that the Medicines Act and the Medicines Commission were introduced because some drugs which had been used for a long period, supposedly safely, were found to be unsafe? This is not only the product of looking back. The Medicines Commission has the duty of looking forward as well. Part of the price of safety—learning from the lessons of the past—is to accept some restrictions on what we have done.

Mr. Mills: I do not really disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am talking about the general direction in which matters are going with constant restrictions on the farming community, which is made up of responsible and trained people. Of course, there are some drugs which should be confined to prescription only from the vet. But I do not want this trend to go any further than it has gone. In a sense, I am firing a warning shot—no more, please.
I do not know of any evidence which shows that there have been real problems in this area. I cannot recall in my long farming experience damage through the misuse of drugs. It is for the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us where the abuse lies. Where is the evidence that it is necessary constantly to bring in these restrictions? I do not see the need for them. Of course, in past years, when perhaps farmers and farm workers were not so well trained it would have been right, but that is a different matter. I see no evidence for these restrictions at all.
I believe that the various chemical companies which prepare the drugs take great care to ensure that their products are in a form and have full instructions suitable for farmers to use. Most of these drugs and preparations go through a lengthy trial period so that the right product can be bought from the pharmacist or travelling salesman and used by the farmer.
I feel that we have gone too far. I reiterate that the points made by the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain in this excellent brief that was sent to me about the delay in treatment and the inevitable extra charges that will be made by the veterinary profession are true.

That could happen. That would be very sad, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland rightly pointed out, in cases of milk fever and staggers, where time is essential, if the farmer has not got the product to deal with that problem, his cow will die and consequently £350 or £400 will have gone west.
Of course, I must try to be responsible. I accept fully that restrictions must be placed on certain drugs, but I believe that we are going too far.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I shall take only a few moments of the time of the House. What difficulty has been caused which makes this legislation necessary as it applies to farmers? I take the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) about the Medicines Act, that there must be some parallel and that a drug which is prohibited for human use should not be available simply because it has "Animal Medicine" written on the bottle.
However, when one considers the thousands of doses of dangerous drugs which are administered safely every day on farms, it is ridiculous to introduce this heavyweight and almost unintelligible legislation to deal with a problem that does not exist. No doubt the Minister will make out a good argument for the legislation in cases where the medicine is primarily for human use. I do not use animal medicines now, but I have done so many times, and this legislation does not seem necessary.
Farmers administer medicines in a way which human beings do not to their fellow men. That is a fair point. Most ordinary people do not give their own families large doses of medicine. The district nurse or doctor does that. But the farmer administers medicine to animals. Dangerous drugs are administered by farmers with knowledge and common sense.
After giving someone a prescription for a human disease doctors do not usually say "By the way, if you call at my surgery tomorrow I shall give you two months' supply". They give the person a prescription and he goes to the chemist. I cannot recall being given a prescription by a vet. Vets provide the drugs themselves.
This is now a profitable sideline for vets. They administer these expensive drugs themselves. It am worried because many rural chemists, whose existence is important beyond their ability to provide animal prescriptions and who are part of the fabric of our rural life, will lose part of their business.
If the Minister can say that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons wishes to see no improvement in turnover in practice that is different, but he cannot give that assurance. Vets will continue to make a happy sideline out of animal drugs in a way that doctors do not. Relatively speaking, the order is unnecessary.

12.23 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): We have had a useful but short debate in which there has been time for the different interests to be represented—certainly by Opposition Members.
The order which is the subject of tonight's motion is one of a package made at the same time and brought into operation on 1st February. In some ways it has been one of the most difficult to get right. It represents an attempt to find the right way of dealing with that range of animal medicines used by farmers and others who keep animals as part of their business, but which it has not been thought necessary to put on veterinary prescription. Most medicinal products are used by ordinary members of the public, and it was for the public that the scheme embodied in Part III of the Medicines Act was primarily devised. The problem has been to fit the sort of products covered by this order into the general structure of retail sale controls provided by the Act.
The Medicines Commission began its consideration of how Part III of the Medicines Act should be implemented as long ago as 1971. In August 1973 it published its provisional recommendations for the controls to be applied to the nonprescription medicines used in livestock production.
Following these provisional recommendations, the Commission had further discussions with organisations affecting the trade, the professions and all others

with an interest in this matter, and the final result was the circulation of a draft Statutory Instrument in March 1976. Circulation of this draft was followed by further discussion and representation by interested organisations, and I personally met two deputations of organisations with a point of view to express about the draft. What I am trying to stress in looking back in this way over past history is that the issues that lie behind this order have been carefully studied over a long period, and by representatives of all those whom they affect.
The order represents the Government's carefully considered decision as to how we should move forward at this stage. It does not pretend to be the final solution to this problem. This was the point raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling); where do we go from here? Over the next two or three years the Veterinary Products Committee will be examining the products in Schedule 1 to this order and recommending, for each product or group of products, what arrangements it considers are appropriate in the long term for retail distribution.
The "merchants' list" created by this order is a sensible working platform for the present day. From it we may well be able to move on towards something better still for the future. I must say to the hon. Member for Westmorland that Ministers will want to see the scheme that we are now embodying in this statutory form in operation for some time before coming to any conclusions as to what changes should be made in the restrictions and arrangements for the products contained in the schedule to the order.
I think that at this point I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), who I know takes a deep interest in the pharmaceutical profession and who has, in my presence, raised this issue in the House on a number of occasions, and also to the hon. Member for Westmorland that we are considering—and have been for some time—the question of the representation on the Veterinary Products Committee, and that I propose to ask the Medicines Commission to consider appointing a qualified professional pharmacist to the committee.
We all have very fresh in our minds the recent argument about the speed of


introduction of the new list of medicines which are to be available only on prescription. This order, of course, is not concerned with those medicines. In the operation of this order there will be a two-year transitional period in which those concerned with the manufacture, importation and distribution of the products covered by it will be able to adjust to the changes it introduces. I believe that this will give ample time for all sections of the trade to arrange their affairs so that disruption and financial loss are minimised.
The order, of course, is not concerned solely with the retailing of farm animal medicines by agricultural merchants to farmers. Another important provision of the order is to be found in article 4, which is concerned with the supply of medicinal products to feed compounders for incorporation in feeding stuffs. Because of an anomaly in the way in which the terms "retail" and "wholesale" are defined in the Medicines Act, the supply of a medicinal feed additive to a feed compounder has to be treated as a retail transaction. Article 4 ensures that these transactions can continue to take place as they have in the past, and that feed compounders are able to continue getting their supplies of feed additives through existing channels and without unnecessary formality.
There has been some controversy about the arrangements which enable feed compounders to keep certain prescription feed additives in stock, as they have been doing in the past, but I am sure it is right to allow this practice to continue. Compounders holding stocks of the prescription additives—they are mostly antibiotics—will not, of course, be able to incorporate them into a feedingstuff until a veterinary prescription has been issued.
Perhaps I might now deal with the point raised by a number of hon. Members about the incorporation of certain products in what the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) called the "farmers' list", and is sometimes called the "merchants' list". It is clear from the discussion tonight that there is scope for argument, and the Veterinary Products Committee will, of course, take into account the views that have been expressed during this debate when it comes to consider these products, but we have

to accept that these matters have been carefully considered by the Veterinary Products Committee. It would be wrong for the Government at this stage to tamper with the judgment of the Medicines Commission.
Some of the products not on the merchants' list are excluded because they fall within a particular class or method of administration which the Commission recommend should generally be restricted to use by or on the specific advice of a practitioner.
Time is running out. Hon. Members have raised a number of specific points to which I shall reply—

It being half-past Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

AGRICULTURE

That the Beef Premiums (Protection of Payments) Order 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 17), a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January be approved.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Question agreed to.

LEGAL AID

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: May I first express my appreciation to the Solicitor-General for being here at this late hour of night, and my apologies and regrets that he should have had to wait so long? I am confident that even at this late hour he will bring good tidings at the end of the debate and announce a change in the provision of legal aid which will help a certain group of people.
The reason for my particular interest in this topic stems from a case of one of my constituents which I took up, the parents of a mongol child who had problems in obtaining a mobility allowance. The child had originally been granted an allowance, but then the Department of


Health and Social Security perfectly reasonably appealed against that decision. The normal procedures were gone through until the matter came before the national insurance commissioner, who decided in favour of my constituent. My constituent fortunately received a substantial sum of money before Christmas, back-dated, as a result of his winning that case.
As a result of the fighting of that case the Secretary of State for Social Services has recently made some changes in regulations which will affect a substantial number of parents and children in that position. But it is important to reflect upon the fact that that case would never have gone to the ultimate appeal if a solicitor in my constituency had not decided to give his advice totally free of charge. The total legal costs of those who took part in the various appeals, as can best be assessed, was between £550 and £600.
The parents could not possibly have found that sum from their own resources. Therefore, they would have given up at an early stage. If they had given up the case would not have gone to the highest level of appeal, and if that had not happened the regulations would not have been changed. Therefore, this is a perfect illustration of the dangers of having a system in which legal aid is not available for such categories of people.
In reply to Questions I have been told that there are about 3,000 to 3,500 people in the categories with which I am concerned, and that the cost of giving them legal aid would be £1 million. If they all obtained legal aid the cost would be about £300 a case. As some of them would not receive legal aid, it is clear that, in the Government's view, the average amount of legal aid that would have to be provided would probably be £400 to £600 per case. Those are sums that are beyond the means of most of the people involved in appeals to a medical tribunal or the national insurance commissioner.
Therefore, I believe that this is a very high priority. That is not my view alone. On the Order Paper is a motion in my name and signed by 91 other hon. Members. Among the early signatories were the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party and the Chairman of the 1922 Committee. The majority of Liberal

Members have signed. Therefore, it can be seen that there is total agreement in all parts of the House that this is a move that should be made. That is also the view of those primarily informed about, and concerned with, this topic. I refer to the report of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Aid for 1973–74. In that report, on the question of legal aid for tribunals it was said:
During the year under review, the problems surrounding the extensions of the Scheme to tribunals have occupied the Council and they have submitted a Memorandum on this subject to your Advisory Committee which is understood to be in process of preparing a report based on representations received from many quarters. The issue is a crucial one because no effective expansion into the field of administrative and welfare law can be achieved in the absence of representation in tribunals dealing with matters likely to affect those eligible for legal aid and, in particular, the very poor. It lies with the Government to remove that reproach and the Council urge that this be given high priority.
That was in 1973–74. It was the report of the Law Society Council and the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee accepted that advice and recommended to the Lord Chancellor that legal aid should be extended to these tribunals.
In reply to a recent question the Lord Chancellor said that he was in favour of this extension. He said that the Government's public expenditure commitments might result in some delay taking place but he personally expressed his approval of the principle concerned.
In terms of public expenditure the latest report on legal aid shows that £21 million is spent on legal aid in matrimonial cases. If we are willing to pay £21 million in legal aid in matrimonial cases, it is incredible that we should decline to spend £1 million to help people who are definitely associated with mental or physical handicaps of one type or another—people who are likely to be amongst the poorest of the poor people in our society.
At present legal aid looks after nearly 200,000 cases a year, and to extend that by a further 2,000 cases in this category of person is not, in my judgment, an unreasonable demand. But we have just received the 27th annual reports of the Law Society and the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee, and there are some disturbing factors as well as some pleasing ones in those reports. I find the most


disturbing factor on page 73, in paragraph 48, on legal aid for tribunals. It reads:
The extension of legal aid to tribunals in the way we proposed in our 24th Report (that is, by adapting the advice and assistance scheme) would require amendments to the 1974 Act. We have, in any case, not yet embarked upon the necessary study and consultations to enable us to draw up an order of priority as between the various tribunals. However, as we said in our memorandum to the Royal Commission, our present view is that Industrial Tribunals are among the most pressing candidates for some form of legal aid. We know that this view is widely shared by those concerned with legal services although there may be other tribunals to which high priority should be given. We hope to go into these matters more closely wtih further assistance from the Council on Tribunals during the coming year.
This illustrates a remarkable lethargy, considering that the recommendation to proceed was made three years earlier. Nevertheless, we finally have a clear statement of policy, to the effect that it is important that legal aid to tribunals should be made available. This appears on page 93 of the reports, in which is stated categorically a whole range of very important reasons why legal aid should be given in this case. I want to read some of the points made.
The report states:
What is needed is a reliable system to ensure that an applicant to a tribunal can obtain:

(i) preliminary advice as to his rights, as to the advisability of appealing, and as to the consequences which will follow if he decides to do so;
(ii) guidance as to how the tribunal will be constituted, the powers that it will be entitled to exercise and the procedure which will apply at the hearing;
(iii) frequently assistance in gathering information and preparing his case;
(iv) in many cases, preparation of a written statement for the tribunal, clearly setting out the relevant facts and any law which may be applicable; and
(v) in a limited number of cases, representation at the hearing and advice thereafter."

I do not suggest that a member of the legal profession should appear at every one of these hearings. I believe that a procedure would be necessary to determine when legal aid for putting in an appearance at the tribunal was necessary and advisable. In the case of my constituent it was certainly advisable. I do not believe that the result achieved would have been achieved without that legal

representation. In other cases, more minor, less important, less involved with matters of major principle, it may well be that no legal representation at the hearing is necessary. I believe that a screening process would be required.
What I am certain of is that for a very small sum of public expenditure a great deal of justice can go to a large number of people who have fundamental and basic problems. I recognise all the restraints upon Government spending. I have occupied positions at two major spending Ministries and know about the pressures that come from the Treasury. But I suggest that if we continue with this principle and delay matters further, with no action being taken for several years, waiting for the economic climate to be right, we shall wait for many months and years during which time 300 people a month will not be represented in the way they should be. During that time a lot of people, mentally or physically handicapped, will perhaps be deprived of benefits which they would otherwise enjoy.
It is for that reason that I hope that the Minister will take note of the feeling in all parts of the House, of the advice which the Lord Chancellor is receiving, and of the principle to which the Lord Chancellor has given verbal support, and will give some indication that the Government will act in the near future.

12.42 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): I am well aware of the concern which the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) has manifested for his constituents in this case, and I think he knows that the story of Robert Edmunds and his parents is not unknown to me. I was made aware of them through my personal concern with mental handicap in the West Midlands and I was pleased to see that, through the generosity of members of the legal profession, the family was ably represented before the national insurance commissioner.
The right hon. Member points very properly to the general implications of the story. He cites it as an example of the need for legal representation to be available in instances where it is not at present available under the legal aid scheme. If I were to dissent from the proposition in that form I would be guilty


of denying in government what I have frequently asserted in opposition. I have concluded speeches very much along the lines of the conclusion of the speech by the right hon. Gentleman. But he appreciates that this matter raises at least two questions which any Government would have to face.
The first is, in what circumstances is legal aid required for proceedings before tribunals or before officers exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions outside the courts? It is a question to which, as the right hon. Member says, a great deal of thought has been given over the years. He mentioned the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Aid which, in its 24th annual report, recommended that legal aid should be extended to all administrative tribunals under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. But it is not true that no further thought has been given to the matter since that report.
It is now clear that not everyone would express the principle in such wide terms. As the right hon. Member realises, there must be qualifications. There are those who say that some tribunals and procedures are essentially informal, that they are there to decide questions best decided by the application of experience in the field and by common sense. People need assistance, it is said. But in those matters it is argued that there are those without legal qualifications who are sometimes better able than lawyers to say what an ordinary person wants to say, and there is an additional advantage that such persons can provide assistance at a lower cost.
This was the view expressed by the Trades Union Congress in its evidence to the Royal Commission on Legal Services. But I know that the TUC would agree that there are cases where the issue to be decided is a technical one, where questions of statutory interpretation or the application of precedent are likely to arise, and where a litigant can be sure of receiving justice only if he has the help of a qualified lawyer. The problem is to decide how we define the circumstances—depending on the tribunal, the procedures, the issues—where the help of a lawyer should be available. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly recognised that problem. Something may turn on

whether it is an adversary procedure, but I would not regard that as conclusive.
Appended to the evidence of the TUC to which I have just referred is a joint statement by the TUC and the Labour Party which includes this passage:
Improvements in the provision of tribunal representation should maintain the present emphasis on lay representatives and encourage the accessibility, speed, cheapness and informality of proceedings. The special expertise of lawyers is only needed in a small number of cases".
There is room for disagreement as to the size of that proportion, but I doubt whether many would dispute that some cases require lawyers and others do not. The difficulty is how we decide between the two sets of cases.
There is a project in Wolverhampton at present, sponsored by the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, and financed by the European Economic Community Social Fund, to see how people can best be advised and represented in certain kinds of tribunal proceedings.
A great deal of thinking and research are going on at this moment, and I hope that within a measurable time we shall have the report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services. I doubt whether decisions about where lawyers are most needed, where they are needed less urgently, and where they are not needed at all can be taken except in the context of recommendations about legal services generally.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the particular category of cases to which he referred is not unique, and the figure which he quoted of £1 million, for example, relates to one category of cases—cases before medical appeal tribunals and proceedings before the national insurance commissioner. There is no obvious reason why they should be singled out at once to the exclusion of all other proceedings. I think that they have to be considered in the context of legal aid for tribunal proceedings, otherwise tomorrow another hon. Member, one of whose constituents has to litigate before a different tribunal, will complain that his problem should have been dealt with in advance.
Let me add—because the right hon. Gentleman adverted to it—that there is a distinction between the need for legal aid so that people can be represented, and the need for legal advice and assistance so


that they may consult a lawyer and receive advice on whether to appeal to a tribunal, on what the essentials of the case are, what evidence to call and what arguments to adduce. That kind of advice may be needed in many cases where there is less need for representation, or perhaps no need at all. Provision for that exists already.
The right hon. Gentleman read from the most recent report of the committee, and he read the various types of help which the committee said were urgently needed. With the exception of the last category, they are all available already under the green form scheme, and it is widely used. Sometimes, even where an applicant is represented by a lay person, they go together to the applicant's solicitor under the green form scheme and discuss the legal aspects of the case.
The Law Society, which administers the scheme, has estimated that the net annual cost at present of assistance under that scheme for tribunal matters is about £112,000. I would not wish the right hon. Gentleman to misunderstand me. He recognises, I think, that that kind of assistance is available. I would not suggest that legal advice and assistance of that kind are a substitute for legal representation where that is necessary. Obviously they are not. But equally it would be misleading to discuss the question as though that kind of advice and assistance were not available.
That brings me to the other aspect of the problem which faces us, as the right hon. Gentleman very fairly accepted. Whether we are discussing legal aid for representation or legal advice and assistance, they are not available at present to enough people. I do not think that I can improve on what was said by the Legal Aid Advisory Committee in its most recent report. I quote from paragraph 40. It is a slightly lengthier quotation than I normally give, but I hope that the House will bear with me because it puts the case so much better than I can. It says:
In our view adequate legal services can in the foreseeable future be based only on the present system of legal aid. We believe that steps must be taken to enable that system to achieve its full potential as the principal means of making legal aid, advice and assistance available to people who are, in the words of the Act that established legal aid, of 'small or moderate means'. Financial conditions have

not been adjusted to take account of a situation where rising incomes have made many ineligible for legal aid while increased costs have prevented them from carrying on litigation unaided. In addition many of those who remain eligible for legal aid are unable to take advantage of it because of the level of contribution asked of them. This together with restrictions on expenditure has meant that legal aid, advice and assistance are no longer available to a high proportion of those for whom they were intended by Parliament. As we remarked earlier, although the decline in eligibility seems to have been arrested since 1974 by linking income limits to increases in supplementary benefits, the substantial decline which had already taken place has not been made good. The most important step pending the Report of the Royal Commission is to improve financial conditions at least to the extent that those people of small or moderate means who have been forced outside the scheme are brought back within it.
It concludes:
This must be the first priority for any resources which become available.
I can only respectfully echo that. I believe that it should be the first priority. We have arrested the decline, as the committee says, but we have not made up the ground which preceded that decline. There is little point in widening the scheme until it is available for those for whom it was intended by Parliament. As I see it, there is no point in adding another seat to the vehicle so long as the engine is not powerful enough to move it.

Mr. Peter Walker: But surely it is not right, if, three or four years ago, the commttee said, "We feel that it is desperately important to extend legal aid to a particular section", to rest on the fact that the original Act failed to meet this problem, and that therefore that group gets only second priority to improving the conditions. The people I have spoken about—the mentally handicapped, the physically handicapped—are amongst the poorest in our community. If they were not included, the original intention of the Act was wrong, and they should have been included. Their inclusion is surely as strong a priority as raising the financial limits of the scheme.

The Solicitor-General: That is a point of view, but it is not the point of view of the committee. It could be strongly argued that to widen the scope of the scheme is rather pointless until it reaches all the categories and income groups for whom it was intended. Unhappily it is a question of priority, as the right hon. Gentleman fairly observed.
The Lord Chancellor and I have had occasion many times to speak of the limits on resources, which gives us no source of pleasure. My noble Friend could hardly ask, when all public expenditure was being contained, that a special exception should be made for legal aid.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the money spent on matrimonial cases. There will now be some saving there. From the extension of the special procedure to all undefended divorces, it is hoped that there will later be some saving. When it is available, there will be many worthwhile calls on that budget. I should be less than honest if I pretended that the proposals made by the right hon. Gentleman necessarily came first in the order of priority, but, of course, the point he has made will be considered and I shall invite my noble Friend to consider what has been said.
The right hon. Gentleman knows from his own experience that it is sometimes the

duty of Ministers to point to all the problems and competing claims. That is not to say that because we have to work out the priorities I am seeking to deny that there is a problem. I hope that no one will infer that I am happy with a situation in which Mr. and Mrs. Edmunds felt that they had to rely on the generosity of solicitors and counsel.
The right hon. Gentleman's point has been taken. He said that he hoped that I would bring good news. He may not think that the fact that the matter is being considered carefully is quite the good news for which he had hoped But I am grateful to him for the opportunity to indicate my noble Friend's thinking on the matter, and I assure him that we are not indifferent.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to One o'clock.